LIBRARY 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA. 


Class 


AN EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY 


ON THE 


GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 
Ss. MATTHEW 


THE Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 


ΑΝ 
EXEGETICAL COMMENTARY 


ΤΕ ACCORDING: TO 


Seve ACL ΤΉΝ 


BY THE 


Rev. ALFRED PLUMMER, M.A., D.D. 


FORMERLY MASTER OF UNIVERSITY COLLEGE, DURHAM 
AND SOME TIME FELLOW AND TUTOR OF TRINITY COLLEGE, OXFORD 


CHARLES SCRIBNER’S SONS 
NEW YORK. 


LONDON: ELLIOT STOCK, 
1910 


Digitized by the Internet Archive 
in 2008 with funding from 
Microsoft Corporation 


htto://www.archive.org/details/exegeticalcommenOOplumrich 


PREFACE 


= 


THE attempt to write this commentary has been made 
under impulses given, in the one case consciously, in the 
other not, by two friends. For some years, Bishop Lloyd 
of Newcastle-on-Tyne, whose loss we are still deeply 
lamenting, had been urging the writer to do something 
of the kind; and one of the latest letters received from 
him,—a letter written shortly before his death, expressed 
delight that this volume was progressing. And it was the 
writer’s privilege to take a very small part in the produc- 
tion of the invaluable work on this Gospel by the Rev. 
W. C. Allen in the International Critical Commentary 
published by Messrs. T. & T. Clark. To share in that 
work was to be inspired to continue it. 

This volume, therefore, has two aims over and above 
the desire to do something in accordance with Bishop 
Lloyd’s earnest wishes. On the one hand, this sequel to 
Mr. Allen’s commentary has for its object to call the 
attention of some who do not already know it to a book 
which Leaflet 31 of the Central Society of Sacred Study 
(July 1907) pronounces to be “the best English com- 
mentary on the first Gospel” (p. 5), and of which reviewers 
have said much the same. On the other hand, this 
volume aims at supplementing the earlier one. A re- 
viewer in the Guardian doubted whether Mr. Allen “was 
well advised to restrict himself so rigidly to questions of 
literary, as distinct from historical—not to say theological 


and religious—interest.” [low well he would have dealt 
Vil 


VIII PREFACE 


with the historical, theological, and religious sides of his 
subject is shown in those places in which he somewhat 
transgresses his self-imposed limits. But there can be no 
doubt that his desire to do the critical and literary part of 
the work (which was the part most needed) with thorough- 
ness has caused him to omit a good deal that his readers 
would have been glad to have from him. To supply, if 
possible, some of the elements which he has passed by, 
or has treated very briefly, is another of the aims of this 
volume. 

The works to which this commentary is indebted are 
numerous. A list of some of them is given below, partly 
aS an expression of gratitude, partly as some help to 
others who desire to labour in the same field. An asterisk 
indicates that the writer’s debt is large, and that others 
may expect to find much to aid them. For further 
information the list of works in the writer’s /zternational 
Critecal Commentary on St. Like, pp. |Xxx-Ixxxviil, 577- 
580, may be consulted. 


Abbott, E. A. . Paradosis, London, 1904. 
Johannine Vocabulary, 1905. 
* Johannine Grammar, 1906. 
Alexander, W.M. Demonic Possession in the New Testament, 
Edinburgh, 1902. 
Allen, W. C.. . *4 Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 
Gospel according to St. Matthew, Edinburgh, 
1907. 
Briggs, C. A. . *Zhe Messiah of the Gospels, Edinburgh, 1894. 
New Light on the Life of Jesus, Edinburgh, 
1904. 
The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, New York, 
1904. 
Criticism and the Dogma of the Virgin Birth 
(N. Amer. Rev., June 1906).1 
Bruce, A. B.. . Zhe Synoptic Gospels (The Expositor’s Greek 
Testament), London, 1897. 
Burkitt, F.C. . *£vangelion Da-Mepharreshe, Cambridge, 
1004. 
The Gospel History and its Transmission, 
Edinburgh, 1906. 


1 This valuable essay has been published separately. Scribner, 1909. 


PREFACE 1X 


Burton and Constructive Studies in the Life of Christ, 
Mathews Chicago. 
Charles, R. H. . Zhe Book of Enoch, Oxford, 1893. 
The Apocalypse of Baruch, London, 1896. 
The Assumption of Moses, London, 1897. 
The Ascension of Jsatah, London, 1900. 
The Book of Jubilees, London, 1902. 
*The Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs, 
translated from the Greek, London, 1908. 
*The Greek Versions of the Testaments of the 
Twelve Patriarchs, Oxford, 1908. 
Dalman, G. . . *Zhe Words of Jesus, Edinburgh, 1902. 
Deissmann,G. A. * Bible Studies, Edinburgh, 1903. 
The Philology of the Greek Bible, London, 
1908. 
New Light on the New Testament, Edinburgh, 
1907. 
Donehoo, J.deQ. Zhe Apocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, 
New York, 1903. 
Encyclopedia Biblica, London, 1899-1903. 
Girodon, P. . . Commentaire critique et moral sur [ Evangile 
selon Saint Luc, Paris, 1903. 
Godet, Ἐς. . Lntroduction au Nouveau Testament, Neuchatel, 
1897. 
Gore,C. . . . Zhe Incarnation of the Son of God (The 
Bampton Lectures, 1891), London, 1891. 
* Dissertations on Subjects connected with the 
Incarnation, London, 1895. 
The New Theology and the Old Religion, 
London, 1907. 
Gould, E. P.. . A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 
Gospel according to St. Mark, Edinburgh, 
1896. 
Gregory, C. R. . Canon and Text of the New Testament, 
Edinburgh, 1907. 
Grenfell and Sayings of our Lord from an early Greek 
Hunt Papyrus, London, 1897. 
New Sayings of Jesus, London, 1904. 
Harnack, A.. . Die Chronologie der altchristlichen Literatur 
bis Eusebius, Leipzig, 1897. 
*The Sayings of Jesus, the Second Source of 
St. Matthew and St. Luke, London, 1908. 
Harris, J. Rendel Zhe Newly Recovered Gospel of St. Peter, 
London, 1893. 
Hastings, J... . *Dictionary of the Bible, Edinburgh, 1898- 
1902, with Lxtra Volume, 1904. 


Χ PREFACE 


Hastings, 1... . *Dictionary of Christ and the Gospels, 1906- 
1908. 

Hawkins, SirJ.C. *Hore Synoptice, Oxford, 1899; 2nd ed. 1909 

Herford, R. T. . Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, London, 
1903. 

Holtzmann,H.J. L£izxleitung in das Neue Testament, Freiburg i. 
B., 1892. 

Holtzmann, O. . Zhe Life of Jesus, London, 1904. 

Hort, F. J. A. . */udatstic Christianity, London, 1894. 

* The Christian Ecclesia, London, 1897. 

Jiillicher, A. . . An Introduction to the New Testameni, 
London, 1904. 

Kennedy, H. A. Sources of New Testament Greek, Edinburgh, 

A. 1895. 

Klostermann, E. Handbuch sum Neuen Testament; Markus, 
Tubingen, 1907. 

Knowling, R. J. Our Lora’s Virgin Birth, London, 1907. 
Lang, C.G.. . Thoughts on Some of the Parables of Jesus, 
London, 1906. 

Lockand Sanday TZzwo Lectures on the Sayings of Jesus re- 
cently discovered at Oxyrynchus, Oxford, 
1897. 
Mackinlay, G. . Zhe Magi, How they recognised Christs Star, 
London, 1907. 
Maclaren, A. . *Zhe Gospel according to St. Matthew, 
London, 1905, 1906. 
Moulton, J. H..*4 Grammar of New Testament Greek, 
Edinburgh, 1906. 
Moulton, R. G.. Zhe Modern Readers Bible, London, 1907. 
Nicholson, E. B. Zhe Gospel according to the Hebrews, London, 
1879. 
The Gospel according to St. Matthew, London, 
1881. 
Oxford Society Zhe Mew Testament in the Apostolic Fathers, 
of Historical Oxford, 1905. 
Theology 
Plummer, A.. . A Critical and Exegetical Commentary on the 
Gospel according to St, Luke, Edinburgh, 
1896. 
Polano, H. . . Zhe Talmud (The Chandos _ Classics), 
London, n.d. 
Resch, A. . . Das Kindheits ‘Evangelium (Texte und 
Untersuchungen, x. 5), Leipzig, 1897. 
*Agrapha, Awssercanonische Schriftfragmente 
(Texte und Untersuchungen, NF. xv. 3, 4), 
Leipzig, 1906. 


Robinson, J. A.. 


PREFACE XI 


The Historical Character of St. John’s Gospel, 
London, 1908. 


Robinson and The Gospel according to Peter, London, 1892. 


James 
Salmon, G. 


Sanday, W. 


Schiirer, E. . 


Smith, D.. 


Steinbeck, J.. 
Swete, H. B.. 


Taylor,C. . 


Wellhausen . 
Wright, A. 


a De a 


. *The Human Element in the Gospels, London, 


1907. 


7 
. *Jnspiration (The Bampton Lectures, 1893), 


London, 1893. 
Sacred Sites of the Gospel, Oxford, 1903. 
The Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, Oxford, 


1905. é 

* Outlines of the Life of Christ, Edinburgh, 
1906. 

* The Life of Christ in Recent Research, Oxford, 
1907. 


. *History of the Jewish People in the Time of 


Jesus Christ, Edinburgh, 1885-1890. 
* Geschichte des Jiidischen Volkes im Zettalter 
Jesu Christi; dritte Auflage, Leipzig, 1898. 
The Gospel according to St. Matthew (The 
Westminster New Testament), London, 
1908. 


. *Das gittliche Selbstbewusstsein Jesu nach dem 


Zeugnis der Synoptiker, Leipzig, 1908. 

The Akhmim Fragment of the Apocrypha 
Gospel of St. Peter, London, 1893. 

*The Gospel according to St. Mark, London, 
1902. 

* The Appearances of our Lord after the Passion, 
London, 1907. 

Sayings of the Jewish Fathers comprising 
Pirge Aboth in Hebrew and English, 
Cambridge, 1897. 

Das Evangelium Matthaet, Berlin, 1904. 


* Synopsis of the Gospels in Greek, London, 


1903. 
Einleitung in das Neue Testament, Leipzig, 
1899. 
*Das Evangelium des Matthdus, Leipzig, 1903. 
Introduction to the New Testament, Edin- 
burgh, 1909. 


* The Journal of Theological Studies, London 
and Oxford, 1899-1909. 


PREFACE TO THE SECOND EDITION 


Sen ame 


SINCE this commentary was printed, several works of great 
importance have been published. Dr. Stanton has given us 
The Synoptic Gospels, being Part II. of his very valuable dis- 
cussion of Zhe Gospels as Historical Documents (Cambridge 
Press). A great many of his conclusions confirm views that are 
advocated in this volume. He is, however, not quite accurate 
in stating (p. 18) that the Oral Theory is adopted in the com- 
mentary on St. Luke in the International series: see p. xxiii in 
that volume. What was doubted there, and is doubted still by 
Dr. Stanton himself, is whether St. Luke can have had the Second 
Gospel in as full a form as that in which we possess it. Several 
of the Cambridge Biblical Essays, edited by Dr. Swete, contain 
a great deal that is most instructive to students of the first three 
Gospels. The same may be said in a still higher degree of the 
very remarkable commentary on Zhe Synoptic Gospels by the 
Jewish scholar C. G. Montefiore (Macmillan). Some things in 
it a Christian must read with dissent, if not with distress; but 
there are many generous tributes to the character and teaching 
of Jesus of Nazareth, and also to the immense influence for good 
which the Gospels have had upon European society for nineteen 
centuries. References to all three of these works have been 
inserted in the present edition. 

Moreover, a second and enlarged edition of Sir John Hawkins’ 
invaluable Hore Synoptice has appeared. The references to the 
first edition in this commentary (pp. xxili, 23, 89, 120, 141) may 
be corrected to the second edition, as follows: p. 131=p. 163; 
PP: 174,175 —pp: 210, 2175p. τι -ρ πὴ; ΡΒ 132 pose 
2. 174 Ξ ΡΒ. 210. 

Those who desire a small commentary on St. Matthew will 
find the recent one by E. E. Anderson (T. & T. Clark) helpful. 

The essay of Professor 5. L. Tyson on Zhe Teaching of our 
Lord as to the Indissolubility of Marriage (University Press, 
Sewanee) may be read in connexion with what is urged in this 
commentary, pp. 81, 82, 259-261. 

XII 


CONTENTS 


--«- 
PAGE 

INTRODUCTION . Ξ : Ε .  Vil-xlvi 
§1. THE AUTHOR . . - Ξ - vii 

82. THE SOURCES . ὁ A : - xl 

83. PLAN OF THE GOSPEL . : ‘ XVill 

§ 4. THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL . XXV 

§5. THE DATE - ; : : . ΧΧΧῚ 


86. “THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PAT- 
RIARCHS” AND THEIR RELATION TO THE 


FIRST GOSPEL Ξ - : XXXIV 
COMMENTARY . - . » Ξ - I-439 
THE BIRTH AND INFANCY OF THE MESSIAH A I 

THE PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY . - 20 

THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE : : ᾿ 45 

THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE : : 200 

THE JOURNEY THROUGH PERA TO JERUSALEM 258 

THE LAST WORK IN THE HOLy City . . 283 

THE ῬΑΒΘΙΟΝ, DEATH, AND RESURRECTION Σ 352 
INDEXES . i Ξ ‘ Ἢ . 441-451 
I. GENERAL . ἣ 5 : - 441 

II. GREEK 9 ᾿ a : : ° 449 


XIII 


ἣν 
>oa 
wie 
ὙΠ) 
"1 ie 
+ 
᾿ 
Ἷ 


οὖ] 


ἌΡ ΟΝ ea. an 


7. ΓΝ. aha λιν = wy δ yhorets ἊΝ 


ως ᾿ oe. ΩΣ 1 ae 


te ‘ τὰ a yw i ip fey ay ie Aho ie: a 


£</ ἢ ᾿ i's eae Cah tan 


᾿ στα ᾿ 


᾿ εν ai # ee 


" 1 ΨΦι TT 4 at a wh ni Sear, a a 


ew ‘ gia Ones ag ‘ue ΠΣ ie one 


a; 7 f ἥ ᾿ τὰν é 
ete re ΙΖ oe, 
$b OS _ 
- 7 ὃ i. 
Oe “Ὁ 7 


INTER ODUCEBON 


— 


Tue AUTHOR. 


In no case is the title to a book of the New Testament part} 
of the original document. It was in all cases added by a 
copyist, and perhaps not by the first copyist. Moreover, in all 
cases it varies considerably in form, the simplest forms being the 
earliest. The “according to” neither affirms nor denies author- 
ship ; it implies conformity to a type, and need not mean more 
than “drawn up according to the teaching of.” But it is certain 
that the Christians of the first four centuries who gave these titles 
to the Gospels meant more than this: they believed, and meant 
to express, that each Gospel was written by the person whose 
name it bears. They used this mode of expression, rather than 
the genitive case used of the Epistles, to intimate that che same 
subject had been treated of by others; and they often emphasized 
the oneness of the subject by speaking of ‘‘the Gospel” rather 
than “the Gospels.” This mode of expression is accurate ; 
there is only one Gospel, ‘the Gospel of God’ (Rom. i. 1) 
concerning His Son. But it has been given us in four shapes 
(εὐαγγέλιον τετράμορφον, Iren. m1. xi. 8), and “according to” 
indicates the shape given to it by the writer named. 

Was the belief of the first Christians who adopted these 
titles correct? Were the Gospels written by the persons whose 
names they bear? With the trifling exception of a few passages, 
we may believe this with regard to the Second, Third, and Fourth 
Gospels : but it is very difficult to believe this with regard to the 
First, the authorship of which is a complicated problem not yet 
adequately solved. But the following results may be accepted 
as probable, and some of them as very probable. 

Ancient testimony in favour of Matthew being the author is 
very strong. It begins with Papias and Irenzus in the second 
century, and is confirmed by Origen in the third and Eusebius 
in the fourth,! not to mention a number of other early writers, 

1 Eusebius, 27. £. iii. 39, v. 8, vi. 25, iii. 24, v. 10, 
ὁ i-vii 


vill GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


whose evidence repeats, or is in harmony with, these four. 
Papias speaks of “the oracles” or “ utterances ” (τὰ λόγια) which 
Matthew composed; the other three speak of his ‘‘ Gospel” 
(εὐαγγέλιον). Assuming that the two expressions are equivalent, 
the testimony is uniform that the First Gospel was written in 
Hebrew by Matthew, the tax-collector and Apostle. In that 
case the Greek Gospel which has come down to us must be a 
translation from this “ Hebrew ” original.’ 

But the First Gospel is evidently not a translation, and it is 
difficult to believe that it is the work of the Apostle. Whoever 
wrote it took the Second Gospel as a frame,? and worked into it 
much material from other sources. And he took, not only the 
substance of the Second Gospel, but the Greek phraseology of it, 
_ showing clearly that he worked in Greek. It is incredible that 
he translated the Greek of Mark into Hebrew, and that then 

some one translated Matthew’s Hebrew back into Greek that is 
almost the same as Mark’s. The retranslation would have 
resulted in very different Greek. And it is not likely that the 
Apostle Matthew, with first-hand knowledge of his own, would 
take the Gospel of another, and that other not an Apostle, as the 
framework of his own Gospel. There would seem, therefore, to 
be some error in the early tradition about the First Gospel. 

Very possibly the Δόγια of Papias should not be interpreted 
as meaning the whole of the First Gospel, but only one of its 
elements, viz. a collection of facts respecting Jesus Christ, chiefly 
consisting of His utterances, and the circumstances in which they 
were spoken. The expression, τὰ λόγια, would fitly describe a 
document largely made up of discourses and parables. That 
such a document is one main element in both the First and 
the Third Gospels, may be regarded as certain, and it may have 
been written originally in Hebrew by S. Matthew. 


1 The subscriptions of certain cursives state that the Hebrew Matthew was 
translated into Greek “‘ by John,” or ‘‘ by James,” or “‘ by James the brother 
of the Lord,” or ‘‘by Bartholomew.” Zahn, Einleitung in das NT. ii. 

: 20.- 
Poe The main common source of the Synoptic Gospels was a single written 
document” (Burkitt, Zhe Gosp. Hist. and its Transmission, p. 34). ‘* Mk. 
contains the whole of a document which Mt. and Lk. independently used” 
(zbzd. p. 37)- 

3 The reader will finda good illustration of this in Duggan’s translation of 
Jacquier’s History of the Books of the New Testament, pp. 35, 127- Jacquier 
translated passages from English into French. Duggan translates them back 
into English, and his English is surprisingly unlike the originals. 

4<<Ffebrew” in this connexion must mean the Aramaic which Christ 
Himself spoke. It is scarcely credible that any one would translate the words 
of Christ into the Hebrew of the O.T., which was intelligible to none but the 
learned. 

The collection of Utterances often spoken of as ‘the Logia” is now 
frequently denoted by the symbol ** Om 


THE AUTHOR ix 


When the unknown constructor of the First Gospel took the 
Second Gospel and fitted on to it the contents of this collection 
of Utterances, together with other material of his own gathering, 
he produced a work which was at once welcomed by the first 
Christians as much more complete than the Second Gospel, and 
yet not the same as the Third, 7/ that was already in existence. 
What was this Gospel to be called? It was based on Mark ; 
but to have called it “according to Mark” would have caused 
confusion, for that title was already appropriated. It would be ' 
better to name it after the other main element used in its con- 
struction, a translation of S. Matthew’s collection of Utterances. 
In this way we get an explanation of the statement of Papias, 
that ‘“‘ Matthew composed the Utterances in Hebrew, and each 
man interpreted them as he was able,” a statement which seems 
to be quite accurate. We also get an explanation of the later 
and less accurate statements of Irenzeus, Origen, and Eusebius, 
which seem to refer to our First Gospel as a whole; viz. that 
Matthew wrote it in Hebrew. It was known that Matthew had 
written a Gospel of some kind in Hebrew: the First Gospel, as 
known to Irenzeus, was called “ according to Matthew” ; and hence 
the natural inference that 7¢ had been written in Hebrew. There 
was a Gospel according to the Hebrews, which Jerome had trans- 
lated into Greek and Latin, and from which he makes quotations. 
A Jewish Christian sect called Nazarenes used this Gospel, and 
said that it was by S. Matthew. It was Aramaic, written 
in Hebrew characters. We do not know enough of it to be 
certain ; but it also may have contained a good many of the 
Utterances collected by Matthew, and for this reason may have 
been attributed as a whole to him. It seems to have been very 
inferior to our First Gospel, and this would lead to its being 
allowed to perish. See Hastings’ DA. extra vol. pp. 338 f. 


Dr. C. R. Gregory (Canon and Text of the New Testament, pp. 245 ff.) 
writes thus of the Gospel according to the Hebrews. ‘‘ One book that now 
seems to stand very near to the Gospels, and again moves further away from 
them, demands particular attention. But we shall scarcely reach any very 
definite conclusion about it. It is like an zgmzs fatuus in the literature of the 
Church of the first three centuries. We cannot even tell from the statements 
about it precisely who, of the writers who refer to it, really saw it. Yes, we 
are even not sure that it is not kaleidoscopic or plural. It may be that 
several, or at least two, different books are referred to, and that even by 
coe le who fancy that there is but one book, and that they know it... . 

othing would be easier for any one or every one who saw, read, or heard of 
that book to call it the Gospel to the Hebrews, the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, or the Hebrews’ Gospel. . . . We shall doubtless some day receive 
a copy of it in the original, or in a translation. It may have contained much 
of what Matthew, Mark, and Luke contain, without that fact having been 
brought to our notice in the quotations made from it. For those who quoted 
it did so precisely in order to give that which varied from the contents of our 
four Gospels, or especially of the three synoptic ones.” The origin of this 


Χ GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW 


perplexing document must be placed early. After Matthew and Luke became 
well known a Gospel covering much the same ground would hardly have been 
written. E. B. Nicholson has collected and annotated the quotations from it ; 
R. Handmann, in 7eate und Untersuchungen, 1888, has done the same. See 
also Mgr. A. S. Barnes, Jour. of Th. St., April 1905. 


The collection of Utterances made by Matthew and used by 
the compiler of the First Gospel, and the similar collection used 
by Luke, were not such as we might have expected. The 
selection was determined by the needs and hopes of the first 
Christians, who wanted moral guidance for the present and 
revelation as to the future. Hence the sayings of Christ pre- 
served in the Synoptic Gospels are largely of either a moral or 
an apocalyptic character.1 Utterances which seemed to teach 
principles of conduct, and prophecies or parables respecting the 
Coming and the Kingdom were specially treasured. Some of 
them were misunderstood at the time, and some appear to have 
been misreported, either from the first or in repeated transmis- 
sion ; but the result is a body of doctrine, of marvellous unity 
and adaptability, the great bulk of which must be faithfully 
reported, because it is inconceivable that the Evangelists or their 
informants can have invented such things. It is evident that 
these informants, in the last resort, are the memories of the first 
body of disciples, who, happily for us, were sometimes stronger 
in memory than in understanding. They remembered what per- 
plexed them, decause it perplexed them ; and they reported it 
faithfully. That a collection of sayings and narratives was made 
during our Lord’s lifetime, as Salmon (Zhe Human Element in 
the Gospels, p. 275) and Ramsay (£xfositor, 1907, p. 424) 
suppose, is scarcely probable (Sanday, Zhe Life of Christ in 
Recent Research, p. 172). 

The answer, therefore, to the question, Who was the author 
of the First Gospel? is a negative one. It was not S. Matthew. 
The writer was an early Jewish Christian, not sufficiently import- 
ant to give his name to a Gospel, and in no way desiring to do 
so. But he used a great deal of material which was probably 
collected by 5. Matthew, whose name thus became connected 
with the First Gospel as we have it.2 That it is in no sense the 
work of S. Matthew is not probable. Some more conspicuous 
Apostle than the toll-collector would have been chosen, if the 
title had no better basis than the desire to give a distinguished 
name to a nameless document. Andrew, or James the son of 


17. R. Ropes, Zhe Apostolic Age, p. 222. There is good reason for 
believing that there existed a written collection of sayings which had the 
definite title Λόγοι τοῦ κυρίου *Incov, to which reference is made Acts xx. 35; 
also in Clem. Rom. Cor. xiii., xlvi. ; andin Polycarp, ii. See Harnack, 7%e 
Sayings of Jesus, pp. 187-189. 

2 See Briggs, Zhe Ethical Teaching of Jesus, pp. 2, 3, 20. 


THE SOURCES xi 


Zebedee, or Philip would have been preferred. And the writer 
has given us “a Catholic Gospel,” written in “a truly Catholic 
temper.” ‘ Wherever his own hand shows itself, one sees that 
his thought is as universalistic as it is free from the bondage of 
the Law. . . . The individuality of the author makes itself so 
strongly felt both in style and tendency, that it is impossible to 
think of the Gospel as a mere compilation ” (Jiilicher). 

On the contrary, as Renan says, ‘‘ the Gospel of Matthew, all 
things considered, is the most important book of Christianity— 
the most important book that has ever been written.” Not 
without reason it received the first place in the N.T. ‘The 
compilation of the Gospels is, next to the personal action of 
Jesus, the leading fact in the history of the origins of 
Christianity ;—I will even add in the history of mankind” 
(Les Evangiles, p. 212; Eng. trans. p. 112). 

The writer of this Gospel rises far above the limitations of 
his own Jewish Christianity. To see in it anything directed 
against the teaching of S. Paul is strangely to misunderstand it. 
So far as there is anything polemical in Mt., it is directed, not 
against the Apostle of the Gentiles, but against Pharisaic 
Judaism. This wide outlook as to the meaning and scope of 
Christianity is clear evidence that what he gives us as the 
Messiah’s teaching is not the writer’s own, but the teaching of 
Him in whom both Jew and Gentile were to find salvation. Its | 
Catholic Christianity, which is the spirit of Christ Himself, has 
made this Gospel, from the first century to the twentieth, a Ἵ 
favourite with Christians. 


THE SOURCES. 


To some extent these have been already stated. The writer 
of our First Gospel used Mk. in nearly the same form as that in 
which it has come down to us,! and also a collection of 
Utterances which was probably made either wholly or in part by 
S. Matthew. This second document, which quickly went out of 
use owing to the superiority of the Canonical Gospels, is 
commonly spoken of as “the Logia,” or (more scientifically) as 
“Q,” a symbol which commits us to nothing. Besides these 
two main sources, there were at least two others. These are (1) 
the O.T., the quotations from which, however, may have come 
from a collection of passages believed to be Messianic, rather 
than from the writer’s knowledge of the O.T. as a whole; and 
(2) traditions current among the first Christians. It is also 


1 Tf there were differences, it is not impossible that the text of Mk. which 
Mt. used was inferior to that which has come down to us: corruption had 
already begun. See Stanton, Synoptic Gospels, pp. 34 ἴ. 


xii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


possible that some of the many attempts at Gospels, mentioned 
by S. Luke in his Preface, may have been known to our 
Evangelist and used by him. But the only one of his sources 
which we can compare with his completed work is the Second 
Gospel, and it is most instructive to see the way in which he 
treats it. This has been worked out in great detail by the Rev. 
W. C. Allen in his admirable work on St. Matthew in the 
International Critical Commentary, which ought to be consulted 
by all who wish to do justice to the Synoptic problem. Here it 
will suffice to make a selection of instances, paying attention 
chiefly to those which illustrate the freedom which the compiler 
of the First Gospel allowed himself in dealing with the Second. 

1. He appropriates zearly the whole of 1.1 The chief 
omissions are: Healing of a demoniac (Mk. i. 23-28); 
Prayer before preaching in Galilee (i. 35-39); Seed grow- 
ing secretly (iv. 26-29); Healing of a deaf stammerer (vii. 
32-36); Healing of a blind man (vill. 22-26); The un- 
commissioned exorcist (ix. 38-40); Widow’s mites (xii. 41- 
44). And there are other smaller omissions. 

2. He makes considerable changes in order, chiefly so as to 
group similar incidents and sayings together, and thus make the 
sequence more telling. Thus we have three triplets of miracles : 
leprosy, paralysis, fever (vill. I-15); victory over natural powers, 
demonic powers, power of sin (vill. 23-ix. 8); restoration of life, 
sight, speech (ix. 18-34). And he omits sayings where Mark 
has them, and inserts them in a different connexion, generally 
earlier. Thus Mk. iv. 21 is inserted Mt. v. 15 instead of xiii. 23, 
24; Mk. iv.. 22 is inserted Mt. x. 26 instead of xiii. 23, 24; 
Mk. ix. 41 is inserted Mt. x. 42 instead of xviii. 5 ; Mk. ix. 50 is 
inserted Mt. v. 13 instead of xvill. 9; Mk. xi. 25 is inserted Mt. 
vi. 14 instead of xxi. 22. 

3. Although he adds a great deal to Mark, yet he frequently 
abbreviates, perhaps to gain space for additions. He often omits 
what is redundant. In the following instances, the words in 
brackets are found in Mark but not in the First Gospel. ‘[The 
time is fulfilled, and] the Kingdom of God is at hand: repent ye 
[and believe in the gospel]’ (Mk. i. 15). ‘And at even, [when 
the sun did set]’ (i. 32). ‘And straightway the leprosy 
[departed from him, and he] was cleansed’ (i. 42). ‘[And the 
wind ceased] and there was a great calm’ (iv. 39). ‘Save in his 
own country, [and among his own kin,] and in his own house’ 
(vi. 4). Such things are very frequent. He also omits un- 


1 Why did both he and S. Luke have so high an estimate of Mk. as to 
incorporate it in their own Gospels? Because Mk. was believed to be the 
mouthpiece of S. Peter, and because his Gospel emanated (as is highly 
probable) from the great centre of all kinds of interests—Rome. 


THE SOURCES xiii 


essential details ; ¢.g. ‘He was with the wild beasts’ (Mk. i. 13) ; 
‘with the hired servants’ (i. 20); ‘with James and John’ (i. 29); 
‘upon the cushion’ (iv. 38); ‘about 2000’ (v. 13); ‘200 
pennyworth’ (vi. 37); ‘so as no fuller on earth can whiten 
them’ (ix. 3); ‘300 pence’ (xiv. 5); the young man who fled 
naked (xiv. 51); ‘the father of Alexander and Rufus’ (xv. 21). 
And he frequently omits notes about the crowds which impeded 
Christ (Mk. i. 33, 45, ii. 2, 4, iii. 9, 10, 20, vi. 31). 

4. On the other hand he frequently expands. Compare 
Mk. i. 7, 8 with Mt. iii. 7-12; Mk. iil, 22-26 with Mt. xii. 
24-45; Mk. iv. with Mt. xiii; Mk. vi. 8-11 with Mt. x. 5-42; 
Mk. xii. 38-40 with Mt. xxiii.; Mk. xiii. with Mt. xxiv.—xxv. 

5. Among the many changes in language which he makes the 
following are conspicuous; and in considering the numbers we 
must remember the different length of the two Gospels. Mark 
has ‘again’ (πάλιν) about 26 times, Matthew about 16, of which 
4 are from Mark. Mark has ‘straightway’ (εὐθύς) about 41 
times, Matthew about 7, all from Mark. Mark has the historic 
present about 150 times, Matthew about 93, of which 21 are 
from Mark. And the compiler seems to have disliked the 
imperfect tense. He frequently turns Mark’s imperfects into 
aorists, or avoids them by a change of expression. Comp. 
Mk. vi. 7, 20, 41, 56 with Mt. x. 1, xiv. 5, 19, 36; and Mk. x. 
48, 52 with Mt. xx. 31, 34. Such alterations are very frequent. 

6. But the compiler, besides making changes of order and 
language, and sometimes abbreviating and sometimes expanding 
Mark’s narrative, occasionally makes a@/terations in the substance 
of Mark’s statements. Some of these seem to aim at greater 
accuracy; as the substitution of ‘tetrarch’ (Mt. xiv. 1) for 
‘king’ (Mk. vi. 14), the omissions of ‘when Abiathar was 
high priest’ (Mk. ii. 26), ‘coming from (work in the) field’ 
(xv. 21), ‘having bought a linen cloth’ (xv. 46), and perhaps the 
change from ‘after three days’ (viii. 31, ix. 31, x. 34) to ‘on 
the third day’ (Mt. xvi. 21, xvii. 23, xx. 19). But other 
changes involve more substantial difference ; e.g. ‘Levi the son 
of Alphzeus’ (ii. 14) becomes ‘a man called Matthew’ (Mt. ix. 
9); ‘Gerasenes’ (v. 1) becomes ‘Gadarenes’ (Mt. vill. 28); 
*Dalmanutha’ (viii. 10) becomes ‘Magadan’ (Mt. xv. 39). 
Where Mark has one demoniac (v. 2) and one blind man 
(x. 46), the compiler gives two (Mt. viii. 28, xx. 30). 

7. Sometimes he alters the narrative of Mark in order to 
make the incident a more clear case of the fulfilment of 
prophecy. Mark has, ‘Ye shall find a colt tied, whereon no 
man ever yet sat; loose him and bring him’ (xi. 2). For this 
he has, ‘Ye shall find an ass tied and a colt with her; loose 
and bring to Me’ (Mt. xxi. 2), and then he goes on to quote the 


XIV GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


prophecy, ‘riding upon an ass, and upon a colt the foal of an 
ass.’ Mark says, ‘They promised to give him money’ (xiv. rr) ; 
for which the compiler substitutes, ‘They weighed to him thirty 
pieces of silver’ (xxvi. 15), which comes from Zech. xi. 12, anda 
little later he quotes Zech. xi. 13, which he erroneously attributes 
to Jeremiah (xxvii. 9). Mark has, ‘They offered Him wine 
mingled with myrrh’ (xv. 23). In Mt. xxvii. 34 the ‘myrrh’ 
is changed to ‘gall,’ perhaps to suggest a reference to Ps. 
Ixix. 21. In a similar way Justin Martyr (Afol. i. 32) says that 
the foal of the ass was “tied to a vine,” in order to make 
the incident a fulfilment of ‘binding his foal unto the vine’ 
(Gen. xlix. 11). 

8. The compiler ¢ones down or omits what seems to be un- 
favourable to the disciples. The rebuke, ‘Know ye not this 
parable? and how shall ye know all the parables?’ (Mk. iv. 13) 
becomes a blessing in Mt. xiii. 16 ff. ‘For they understood not 
concerning the loaves, but their heart was hardened’ (vi. 52) is 
omitted. At Mk. viii. 29 the compiler inserts ‘ Blessed art thou, 
Simon Barjona,’ etc. (xvi. 17-19). He omits (xvii. 4) that Peter 
‘wist not what to answer’ (Mk. viii. 6); also that they 
‘questioned among themselves what the rising from the dead 
should mean’ (ix. 10). For ‘they understood not the saying, 
and were afraid to ask Him’ (Mk. ix. 32) he substitutes, ‘they 
were exceeding sorry’ (xvii. 23). For ‘they disputed one with 
another, who was the greatest’ (Mk. ix. 34) and were rebuked 
for so doing, he substitutes, ‘the disciples came unto Jesus, 
saying, Who then is the greatest in the kingdom of heaven?’ 
(xviii. 1). The ambitious petition of the sons of Zebedee 
(Mk. x. 35) is assigned to their mother (Mt. xx. 20). ‘They 
wist not what to answer Him’ (Mk. xiv. 40) is omitted 
(Mt. xxvi. 43). 

g. Still more instructive and interesting are the cases in which 
the compiler foxes down or omits what might encourage a low 
conception of the character of Christ. Reverential feeling seems 
to have made him shrink from the freedom with which the 
earlier record attributes human emotions and human limitations 
to our Lord. ‘And when He had looked round on them with 
anger, being grieved at the hardening of their heart’ (Mk. iii. 5) 
is omitted Mt. xii. 13.‘ He marvelled because of their unbelief,’ 
and ‘He could there do no mighty work’ (vi. 5, 6) is changed 
to ‘He did not many mighty works there because of their 
unbelief? (Mt. xiii. 58). ‘He sighed deeply in His Spirit’ 
(viii. 12) 15 omitted Mt. xvi. 4. ‘He was moved with indignation’ 
(x. 14) is omitted Mt. xix. 14. ‘Looking upon him loved him’ 
(x. 21) is omitted Mt. xix. 21. ‘Began to be greatly amazed’ 
(xiv. 33) is changed to ‘began to be sorrowful’ (Mt. xxvi. 37). 


| 
] 
' 


THE SOURCES xv 


The compiler also omits questions which seem to imply 
ignorance on the part of Christ. ‘What is thy name?’ (ν. 9). 
‘Who touched My garments?’ (v. 30). ‘How many loaves 
have ye?’ (vi. 38). ‘Why doth this generation seek a sign?’ 
(viii. 12). ‘Seest thou aught?’ (viii. 23). ‘What question ye 
with them ?’ (ix. 16). ‘ How long time is it since this hath come 
unto him?’ (ix. 21). ‘What were ye reasoning in the way?’ 
(ix. 33). ‘Where is My guest-chamber?’ (xiv. 14). The 
compiler also omits what might imply that Christ was unable to 
accomplish what He willed. ‘Jesus could no more openly enter 
intoa city’ (i. 45). ‘He said unto him, Come forth thou 
unclean spirit’ (v. 8) when the demon had not yet come forth. 
‘He would have passed by them’ (vi. 48). ‘Would have no 
man know it; and He could not be hid’ (vii. 24). ‘If haply 
He might find anything thereon . . . for it was not the season 
of figs’ (xi. 13); as if Christ did not know till He came and 
looked, and as if He had expected what could not be. Perhaps 
the change from ‘driveth Him forth’ (Mk. i. 12) to ‘was led up’ 
(Mt. iv. 1) is of a similar character. 

‘To the same feeling we may attribute the remarkable change 
of ‘Why callest thou Me good? None is good save one, even 
God’ (x. 18), into ‘Why askest thou Me concerning that which is 
good? One there is who is good’ (Mt. xix. 17); and the 
probable omission (the reading is doubtful) of ‘neither the Son’ 
xiii. 32) in Mt. xxiv. 36. The change of ‘the carpenter’ 
δ 3) into ‘the carpenters son’ (Mt. xiii. 55) is of a similar 
kind; and perhaps the change of ‘Master, carest Thou not 
that we perish?’ (iv. 38) into ‘Save, Lord, we perish’ (Mt. 
viii. 25). But perhaps this last change was made to shield the 
disciples. 

Side by side with this toning down of what might lessen the 
majesty of Christ’s person is a readiness to heighten what 
illustrates it. When Mark says that ‘they brought to Him @// 
that were sick and them that were possessed,’ and that ‘He 
healed many and cast out many demons’ (i. 32, 34), the 
compiler says that ‘they brought to Him many possessed,’ and 
that ‘He cast out the spirits with a word, and healed a/l’ 
(Mt. viii. 16). He thrice, by inserting ‘from that hour,’ insists 
that the healing word took effect immediately (ix. 22, xv. 28, 
xvii. 18). He makes the fig-tree wither immediately, and states 
that the disciples were amazed at the sudden withering, whereas 
Mark indicates that they did not notice the withering till next 
day. He omits the two miracles in which Christ used spittle as 
a means of healing (Mk. vii. 31, viii. 22), and he omits the 
convulsiops of the demoniac boy, which might imply that Christ 
had difficulty in healing him (Mt. ix. 20). He also represents 


xvi GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


Jairus’ daughter as being raised by merely taking her hand: no 
word is recorded (ix. 25).! 

These nine classes of changes, which by no means exhaust 
the subject, strongly confirm the generally accepted view that 
the Gospel according to S. Mark is the earlier. We can see 
in the majority of cases why the change from Mark to Matthew 
has been made. Assume that Matthew is primary, and the 
changes to what Mark gives us would be unintelligible. More- 
over there is the fact that some of the changes made in Matthew 
are found in Luke also. That again points to Mark being the 
earliest.? _ 

The consideration of the material which is common to both 
Matthew and Luke, but is not found in Mark, does not lead to 
such sure results; and a variety of hypotheses are possible. 
(x) Both the compiler of Matthew and ‘the beloved physician’ 
may have used the same collection of Utterances, translated from 
the Hebrew of S. Matthew the Apostle. (2) S. Luke may have 
used a collection similar to the one used by the compiler, but 
varying somewhat from it. (3) Each may have used several 
such collections, having a good deal of common material ; and 
S Luke knew of the existence of many such documents. (4) 
Each may have drawn from oral traditions, which to-a large 
extent had become stereotyped. (5) S. Luke may have seen 
the Gospel according to Matthew. With our present knowledge, 
certainty is impossible. That S. Luke and the compiler of 
Matthew used Mark, pretty nearly as we have it, is certain ; that 
they had other and similar materials, is certain; and that each 
used materials which the other did not use, and perhaps did not 
know, is also certain. Beyond that, all is more or less reasonable 
conjecture. That each of them used Mark as we have it, is a 
reasonable conjecture ; and Burkitt agrees with Wellhausen that 
“ Mark was known to both the other Synoptists in the same form 
and with the same contents as we have it now” (776 Gospel History 
and its Transmission, p. 64). But perhaps it would be more 
accurate to say that our Mark is derived from one copy of the 
autograph, and that the other two Synoptists made use of 
another ; and we must remember that in those days scribes were 
not mere copyists whose one aim was to copy accurately ; they 
thought that it was their duty to edit and improve what they had 
before them. Again, it is a reasonable conjecture that the 


. 


material used by the Synoptists existed originally in Aramaic, 


1 Perhaps the two demoniacs and the two blind men (viii. 28, xx. 30), 
where Mark mentions only one, may be placed, under this head. 

2See an excellent article on ‘‘The Early Church and the Synoptic 
Gospels” in the Journal of Theological Studies, April 1904, pp* 330-342 3 
also January 1909, pp- 168, 172. 


THE SOURCES xvii 


- and that most of it had been translated into Greek before they 


used it. 

If copyists sometimes edited what they copied, much more \ 
did Evangelists edit the materials which they used. We see 
this in their grouping, in their wording, and in their insertion 
of editorial notes. Such notes were indispensable. A writer; 
who has to unite in consecutive narrative anecdotes and utter- 
ances of which the historical connexion has been lost, must insert 
editorial links to form a sequence. He may or may not have 
independent authority for the link, but a link of some kind he 
must have, whether there be authority for it or not. And in 
some cases the discourses or narratives which he has to piece 
together may be said to be the authority for what is inserted, for 
something of the kind must have taken place, or what is recorded 
could not have happened. Thus, the record of a long discourse 
on a mount implies that the Lord went up the mount, that He 
had an audience, and that, when all was over, He came down 
again. These details, therefore, are inserted (v. 1, vill. 1). After 
charging the Apostles, He must have gone elsewhere to teach 
(xi. 1). The same thing would happen at the end of other 
discourses (xiii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1). Where there was nothing 
known to the contrary, it might be assumed that the Twelve 
understood Him (xvii. 13), even when at first they had not done 
so (xvi. 12). If the Evangelist felt quite certain of the meaning 
of our Lord’s words, he might give the supposed meaning as 
having been actually spoken by Him (xii. 40). If a prophecy, 
which the Messiah must have known, seemed to be very 
appropriate, He might be supposed to have quoted it (ix. 13, 
xii. 7, ΧΙ], 14, 15, xxiv. 30). If, at the Supper, the Twelve 
said to Him, one by one, ‘Is it I?’ then Judas must have said 
so, and the Lord would answer him (xxvi. 25). If the women 
on Easter morning found the stone already removed from the 
tomb, the removal must have had a cause; and if there was an 
earthquake, this must have had a cause. It was reported that 
an Angel had been seen: then, doubtless, he was the cause 
(xxviii. 2-4). There are other places where we may reasonably 
conjecture that we are reading editorial comment rather than 
the reproduction of historical tradition ; ¢.g. xiii. 36a, xvi. 114, 
xxii. 34; and there may be even more than these. 

Editorial additions of this kind do not look like the work of 
an Apostle and an eye-witness. If the First Gospel, as we have 
it, were the production of S. Matthew, we should, as in the 
Fourth Gospel, have much more important additions to what 
is told us by S. Mark. In the feeding of the 5000, contrast the 
vivid details which Jn. alone gives with the trifling inferences 
which are peculiar to Mt. In the story of the Passion and of 


XVlii GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


the Resurrection, the same kind of contrast will be felt. These 
editorial notes, therefore, are a strong confirmation of the view 
that only to a very limited extent can our First Gospel be 
regarded as the composition of the Apostle. 

The existence of these notes does not interfere with the 
substantial trustworthiness of the Gospels. Even when we 
have set aside all the verses which seem to be editorial, the 
number of them is not large, and is almost infinitesimal in 
comparison with the remainder. And it must be remembered 
that we may be mistaken about some of them, and also that 
some, although editorial, may be quite true. At any rate they 
represent what writers in A.D. 60-100 regarded as sufficiently 
probable to be affirmed. 


PLAN OF THE GOSPEL. 


As already intimated, the framework is that of Mk. 
Omitting the first two chapters respecting the Birth and Infancy 
of the Messiah, which have no parallel in Mk., we may exhibit 
the correspondence, or want of correspondence, between the 
two Gospels section by section. If both Gospels are analysed 
into five main divisions, the relations of the divisions to one 
another will stand thus :— 


MARK. MATTHEW. 
i. I-13 Introduction to the Gospel 111. I-iv. II 
1. 14-vi. 13 Ministry in Galilee iv. I2-xiiil. 58 
vi. I4-ix. 50 Ministry in the Neighbourhood xiv. I-xvill. 35 
x. I-52 Journey through Perea to Jerusalem xix. I-Xx. 34 
xi, I-xvi. 8 Last Week in Jerusalem xxi. I-xxvill. 8 


It is in the first two divisions that Mt. makes most changes 
in the order of the shorter sections of which they are composed. 
But from xiv. 1, and still more decidedly from xv. 21, he follows 
the order of Mk. very closely, although he both abbreviates and 
expands. And it should be noted that where Mt. deviates from 
the order of Mk., Lk. commonly follows it. Mk. is nearly always 
supported by either Mt. or Lk. or both: his is the original order. 

When we subtract from Mt. what has been derived from 
Mk., we have a remainder very different from that which is 
produced by subtracting from Lk. what has been derived from 
Mk. In the latter case we have not only various discourses, 
especially parables, which have not been recorded elsewhere, 
but also a large proportion of narratives, which Lk. alone has 
preserved. But in the case of Mt., that which remains after 
Mk. has been subtracted consists almost wholly of discourses, 
for which the compiler evidently had a great liking. ‘The amount 


PLAN OF THE GOSPEL xix 


of narrative which he alone has preserved for us is not very 
great; nor, with the exception of the contents of the first two 
chapters, is it, as a rule, of first-rate importance. It consists of 
such stories as Peter’s walking on the sea, the demand for the 
Temple-tax, the suicide of Judas, the message of Pilate’s wife 
and his washing his hands, the earthquake and the resurrection 
of the saints, the setting of a watch at the sepulchre and the 
subsequent bribing of the guards. What the Evangelist chiefly 
has at heart is to add to Mk.’s narratives of the dozngs of the 
Messiah a representative summary of the /eaching of the Messiah. 
‘From that time began Jesus to preach’ (iv. 17). ‘He opened 
His mouth and taught them’ (v. 2). ‘He departed thence to 
teach and preach’ (xi. 1). ‘He taught them in their synagogue’ 
(xiii. 54). ‘And Jesus went about all the cities and the 
villages, teaching in their synagogues, and preaching the Gospel 
of the Kingdom’ (ix. 35). Statements such as these show 
clearly the writer’s deep interest in all that the Messiah said; 
and the number of sayings which he has collected shows this 
still more. 

In this presentation of the words of Christ in this Gospel the 
Evangelist is fond of gathering into one discourse a number of 
shorter sayings, as may be seen from comparison with S. Luke, 
who has these same sayings scattered about, in various con- 
nexions, in his Gospel. ‘The chief example of this is the 
Sermon on the Mount (Mt. v.-vii.). But there are other 
instances of what seems to be a similar process, making at least 
seven inall. There is the address to the Apostles (x. 5-42); the 
collection of parables (xiii.) ; the discourse on the little child and 
the sayings which follow it (xviii.); the three parables of warning to 
the hierarchy (xxi. 28-xxii. 14); the Woes against the Pharisees 
(xxiii.); and the discourse on the Last Things (xxiv., xxv.). To 
these we may perhaps add the discourse about John the Baptist, 
which is grouped with other sayings (xi. 4-19 ; 20-30). Five of 
these seven or eight discourses are clearly marked off, as we 
shall see, by the Evangelist himself. 

It is often pointed out that in this Gospel incidents and 
sayings are frequently arranged in numerical groups of three, 
five, or seven. Triplets are very common. The opening 
genealogy is artificially compressed into three divisions, each 
having two sevens in it. There are three events of the 
Childhood, the visit of the Magi, the flight into Egypt, and 
the return (iil. 1-23); three temptations (iv. 1-11); three 
examples of righteousness, alms, prayer, and fasting (vi. 1-18); 
three prohibitions, Hoard not, Judge not, Give not what is holy 
to the dogs (vi. 19-vii. 6); under ‘Hoard not’ there are three 
aims, the heavenly treasure, the single eye, and the banishment 


ΧΧ GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW 


of anxiety (vi. 19-34); threefold ‘Be not anxious’ (vi. 25; 
31; 34); three commands, Ask, Enter by the narrow gate, 
Beware of false prophets (vil. 7-20); three pairs of contrasts, 
the broad and narrow way, the good and bad trees, and the 
wise and foolish builders (vii. 13 ; 17 ; 24-27) ; threefold ‘in Thy 
Name’ (vil. 22); three miracles of healing, leprosy, palsy, fever 
(villi. 1-15); three miracles of power, storm, demoniacs, sin 
(vill. 23—-1x. 8); three miracles of restoration, health, life, sight 
(ix. 8-34); threefold ‘Fear not’ (x. 26; 28; 31); threefold ‘is 
not worthy of Me’ (x. 37, 38); three cavils of the Pharisees 
(xii. 2; 14; 24); three signs to the Pharisees, Jonah, Ninevites, 
and Queen of the South (x. 38-42); ‘empty, swept, and 
garnished’ (xil. 44); three parables from vegetation, Sower, 
Tares, and Mustard-seed (xiii. 1-32); three parables of warning 
(xxi. 28—xxil. 14); three questioners, Pharisees, Sadducees, and 
lawyer (xxil. 15 ; 22; 35); three powers with which God is to be 
loved, heart, soul, and mind (xxii. 37). In ch. xxiil. we have 
numerous triplets: ‘Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites (fasszm) ; 
feasts, synagogues, and market-places (6); teacher, father, and 
master (8-10), Temple and gold, altar and gift, heaven and 
throne (16-22); tithing of mint, dill, and cummin contrasted 
with judgment, mercy and faith (23); tithing of trifles, straining 
out gnats, cleansing of cup and platter (23-26); prophets, wise 
men, and scribes (34). In the remaining chapters we have other 
examples; three parables against negligence, the Faithful and 
the Unfaithful Slaves, the Ten Virgins, and the Talents (xxiv. 45-- 
xxv. 30); three addresses to the Three in Gethsemane (xxvi. 38 ; 
40, 41 ; 45, 46); three prayers in Gethsemane (xxvi. 39; 42; 44); 
three utterances at the Arrest, to Judas, Peter, and the multitudes 
(xxvi. 50; 52-54); three shedders of innocent blood, Judas, 
Pilate, and the people (xxvii. 4; 24; 25); three signs to attest 
the Messiahship of the Crucified, the rending of the veil, the 
earthquake, the resurrection of saints (xxvil. 51-53); three 
groups of witnesses to the Resurrection, the women, the soldiers, 
and the disciples (xxviii. 1-10; 11-15 ; 16-20); the last words to 
the Church, a claim, a charge, and a promise (xxviil. 18-20) ; of 
which three the second was threefold, to make disciples, to 
baptize, and to teach (19, 20); of which three the second again 
has a triple character: ‘into the Name of the Father and of the 
Son and of the Holy Ghost’ (19). 

Many Of these thirty-eight instances have no parallel passage 
in Mk. or Lk. In many of the others it will be found that the 
parallel passage omits one or more member of the triplet or adds 
one to it; e.g. Lk. (vi. 43-49) has the good and bad trees, and 
the wise and foolish builders, but not the broad and narrow way. 
Elsewhere (xiii. 24) he has the narrow door, but no broad or 


PLAN OF THE GOSPEL xxi 


wide door. For ‘judgment, mercy, and faith’ Lk. (xi. 42) has 
‘judgment and the love of God.’ He has (xi. 39, 42) the 
cleansing of cup and dish, and the tithing of small herbs, but he 
omits the straining out of the gnat. For the threefold ‘ Be not 
anxious,’ he has (xii. 22, 29, 32) ‘Be not anxious,’ ‘Seek not,’ 
‘Fear not. On the other hand, for heart, soul, and mind he 
has (x. 27) heart, soul, strength, and mind. 

There can be no doubt that some of these triplets were in the 
sources which both Mt. and Lk. used, for both Gospels have 
them. Ina few cases it is just possible that Lk. derived them 
from Mt. ; but it is much more reasonable to assign their origin 
to the sources; eg. the three temptations probably come from 
some unknown source; the three addresses to the Three in 
Gethsemane are in Mk., though not in Lk., and may be assigned 
to Mk. ; and there are other triplets, not included in the above 
list, which are in both Mt. and Lk. and may be attributed to the 
sources which they used; eg. ‘ask,’ ‘seek,’ ‘knock’ (vii. 7; 
Lk. xi. 9); reed, man in soft clothing, prophet (xi. 7-9; Lk. vii. 
24-26); Chorazin, Bethsaida, Capernaum (xi. 20-23; Lk. x. 
13-15). But, when all deductions are made, there remains a 
considerable number of triplets which Mt. has constructed either 
by grouping or by modifications in wording. 

Groups of five are less common. Mt. has marked off for us 
five great discourses, each of which is closed by him with the 
same formula, ‘It came to pass when Jesus finished’ (ἐγένετο ὅτε 
ἐτέλεσεν ὁ Ἰησοῦς), vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. I, xxvi. 1. These 
five discourses are: the Sermon on the Mount; the address to 
the Apostles; the collection of parables; the discourse on the 
little child with the sayings which follow it; and the great 
apocalyptic discourse. The Sermon on the Mount contains 
five corrections of inadequate conceptions about the Law, each 
of them introduced by the words, ‘But I say unto you’ (v. 22, 
28, 34, 39, 44); and in the apocalyptic discourse there are two 
parables in which the number five is prominent, the five wise 
and the five foolish virgins, and the five talents which gained 
other five. In chapters xxi. and xxii. there are five questions ; 
about authority, tribute, resurrection, great commandments, and 
the Son of David. Of the five great discourses, the address to 
the Twelve (x. 5—15 ; 16-23 ; 24-33 ; 34-39 ; 49-42) and the great 
eschatological discourse (xxiv. 5-14; 15-51; xxv. I-13; 14-30; 
31-46) can be divided into five paragraphs; but the latter can 
also be conveniently divided into seven (xxiv. 5-14; 15-28 ; 
29-313; 32-513 XXV. I-13; 14-30; 31-46). The discourses in 
ch. xi. (7-19 ; 20-24 ; 25-30) and in ch. xviii. (3-14 ; 15-20; 21-35) 
fall readily into three divisions ; but by further subdivision they 
can be made into five. The Sermon on the Mount can also be 


ΧΧΙΙ GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW 


divided into five parts (v. 3-16; 17-48; vi. 1-18; 19-vii. 6, 
7-27), and some of these parts can be readily subdivided into 
five or three paragraphs. 

We have seen that this Gospel can be placed side by side 
with Mk. and analysed into five main divisions. This means 
omitting the first two chapters, which have no parallel in ΜΚ. 
If we add these two chapters as an Introduction, and break the 
last great division into two (xxi. I-xxv. 46; xxvi. I-xxviil. 20), 
thus separating the last days of work from the Vassion, 
Death, and Resurrection, we have a Gospel in seven main 
divisions. 

But the clearest examples of grouping by seven are the seven 
parables in ch. xiii. and the seven woes in ch. xxiii. Some find 
seven Beatitudes at the opening of the Sermon, and seven 
petitions in the Lord’s Prayer. It is also possible to find a 
group of seven in vi. 25-34 (see notes there); and there are 
some who think that the separate instructions to the Twelve 
have been gathered up by Mt. “into a single sevenfold com- 
mission.” It has been already pointed out that a fivefold 
division seems to fit this discourse well; but, if we are to finda 
seven in the Mission of the Twelve, we shall find it more 
securely in the seven centres of work which resulted from it,— 
our Lord, and six pairs of Apostles. 

It is plain from what has just been stated that groups of five 
and groups of seven are far less frequent in this Gospel than 
groups of three. Even if we were to count all the possible 
instances of five and of seven, they would hardly amount to half — 
the number of triplets. The five great discourses, the seven 
parables, and the seven woes are evidently intentional groupings. 
Many of the others which have been suggested may be intended 
also; but we cannot be certain. 

There is nothing fanciful or mystical in these numerical 
rarangements. Groups of three and of seven are frequent in the 
O.T., and were in use before its earliest books were written. 
Three is the smallest number which has beginning, middle, and 
end, and it is composed of the first odd number added to the 
first even‘number. ‘The days of the week, corresponding to 
phases of the moon, made seven to be typical of plurality and 
completeness. Although seven is a sacred number often in the 
O.T. and sometimes in the N.T., e.g. in the Apocalypse, yet there 
is no Clear instance of this use in the Gospels. All that the 
Evangelist need be supposed to imply by these numerical 
groupings is orderly arrangement. Everything in the Gospel 
history took place and was spoken εὐσχημόνως καὶ κατὰ τάξιν 
(1 Cor. xiv. 40); and everything must be narrated ‘decently 
and in order.’ 


PLAN OF THE GOSPEL xxiii 


It is possible that these groupings into threes, or fives, or 
sevens, or tens would aid the memory of both teachers and 
learners, and would in this way be useful to catechists. It is 
also possible that the Evangelist had this end in view in making 
these numerical groups. Sir John Hawkins (//ore Synoptice, 
p. 131) favours such a theory. “This seems to have been 
done in Jewish fashion, and perhaps especially for the use of 
Jewish-Christian catechists and catechumens. ... When we’ 
think of the five books of the Pentateuch, the five books of) 
Psalms, the five Megilloth, the five divisions which Dr. 
Edersheim and others trace in Ecclesiasticus, the five parts 
which Mr. Charles as well as previous scholars see in the Book 
of Enoch (pp. 25-32; Hastings’ DZ. art. ‘Enoch’), and the 
five Pereqs which make up the /rge Adofh, it is hard to believe 
that it is by accident that we find in S. Matthew the five times 
repeated formula about Jesus ‘ending’ His sayings (vii. 28, 
xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1, xxvi. 1). Are we not reminded of the 
colophon which still closes the second book of Psalms, ‘The 
prayers of David the son of Jesse are ended’ (Ps. lxxii. 20)?’” 
Comp. also, ‘The words of Job are ended’ (Job xxxi. 4o). Of 
course the fact that Mt. consciously made five great discourses 
does not prove that he did so in order to assist the memory of 
catechists and catechumens, but some of his numerical groups 
may have had this aim. 

Other instances of the occurrences of these and other 
numbers in this Gospel might be cited; but they are of less 
mportance. Some of them are probably to be understood 
quite literally. It so happened that there were three, or five, or 
seven; as in Peter’s proposal for three tabernacles, or the five 
loaves and the five thousand, or the seven loaves and the seven 
baskets. In other cases it is a round number, as in Peter’s 
question, ‘Until seven times?’ But the examples given above 
fully justify the statement that these numerical arrangements are 
a characteristic of the First Gospel. 

It is this intense desire for what is orderly that has caused 
the Evangelist to gather together detached sayings of the Messiah 
and group them into continuous discourses. The large pro” 
portion of discourses in this Gospel has often been pointed out, 
and it is one of the reasons which quickly made the Gospel so 
much more popular than the earlier Gospel of Mark. In Mk, 
about half consists of discourses, in Lk. about two-thirds, in Mt. 
about three-fourths. The main portion of Mt., the ministry in 
Galilee and the neighbourhood (iv. 12-xviii. 35), is expanded 
from Mk. chiefly by the insertion of discourses, and it seems to 
be arranged on a fairly symmetrical plan. 

1. Opening activities, grouped round a prophecy of Isaiah 

é 


XXIV GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


(Mt. iv. 15, 16), and ending with the Sermon on the Mount 
(iv. 12—-vii. 29). 

2. Ten acts of Messianic Sovereignty, grouped round a 
prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. vill. 17), and ending with the Charge to 
the Apostles (vill. I-x. 42). 

3. Many utterances of Messianic Wisdom, grouped round a 
prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. xii. 18-21), and ending in seven 
illustrations of teaching by parables, which are grouped round 
Ps. Ixxviil. 2 (xi. 1-xiil. 58). 

4. Continued activities in and near Galilee, grouped round a 
prophecy of Isaiah (Mt. xv. 8, 9), and ending in the discourses 
on offences and forgiveness (xiv. I-xvill. 35). Thus, chapters 
V.—Vil., X., ΧΙΠ., and xviii. seem to be intended as conclusions to 
definite sections of the Gospel, and they consist almost entirely 
of discourses. 

The compiler’s preference for discourses is shown, not only 
by his insertion of them, but by his abbreviation of mere 
narrative. He frequently, as we have seen, omits details. He 
cares little about local colour or chronological order. His aim 
is to produce a definite impression—¢he Messtanic dignity of Jesus. 
This aim is clear from the outset. ‘Book of the generation of 
Jesus, Messiah, Son of David, Son of Abraham’ (i. 1). The 
descent from David is emphasized (xii. 23, xxi. 9, 15, xxii. 42) 
as indicating that He is the Messianic King (il. 2, xxi. 5, xxvii. 
II, 29, 37, 42). The book is at once Jewish and anti-Jewish. 
It is manifestly written by a Jew for Jews. Its /Jezwsh tone is 
conspicuous throughout. Palestine is ‘the Land of Israel’ 
(ii. 20, 21); its people are ‘Israel’ (vill. 10) or ‘the lost sheep 
of the house of Israel’ (x. 6, xv. 24); its towns are ‘ the cities of 
Israel’ (x. 23); and God is ‘the God of Israel’ (xv. 31). 
Jerusalem is ‘ the holy city’ (iv. 5, xxvil. 5 3); an expression found 
in Is. xlviii. 2, ii. 1; Dan. ix. 24; Tob. xii. 9; but in the N.T. 
peculiar to this Gospel and the equally Jewish book of 
Revelation (xi. 2, xxl. 2, ΤΌ, xxii. 19). References to the 
fulfilment of Jewish prophecies abound (i. 22, ii. 6, 15, 17, 23, 
lil, 3, iV. 14, Vill. 17, ΧΙ]. 17, Xill. 14, 35, ΧΧΙ. 4, XXIV. 15, XXVI. 31, 
54, 56, xxvii. 9). It is evidently the aim of the Evangelist to let 
his fellow-Christians of the house of Israel know the certainty of 
that in which they had been instructed, viz. that Jesus of 
Nazareth was the Messiah foretold in prophecy. And the book 
is anti-Jewish in showing that, although the Messiah was of them, 
and came to them first (x. 5, 6), yet by their rejection of Him 
they had lost their birthright of priority. The old exclusive 
barriers had been broken down, and the Kingdom of Israel had 
become a Kingdom of the Heavens, open to all nations. In 
order to enjoy the Messianic glory, the Jew must cease to be a 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL XXV 


Jew, must become a Christian, with Jesus as his Messiah, and 
be a subject in a Kingdom that was no longer Jewish. Thus 
this Gospel represents a moment of transition, a passage from 
the peculiar people to the whole race of mankind. On the one 
hand, the Messiah is come, ‘not to destroy but to fulfil’ (v. 17, 
18), and, as regards His work on earth, is sent only to Israel 
(xv. 24). But, on the other hand, the Law and the Prophets 
find their limit in the Baptist (xi. 12, 13); the Son of Man is 
Lord of the Sabbath (xii. 8); there is no moral pollution in food 
(xv. 11, 19); the Kingdom is about to be transferred to others 
(xxi. 43, comp. viii. 11, 12); and the Gospel of the Kingdom is 
to be preached in all the world to all peoples (xxiv. 14). And 
thus the book, which opens within the narrow limits of Jewish 
thought, with the origin of the Messiah as ‘Son of David’ and 
‘Son of Abraham’ (i. 1), ends with the great commission of the 
Messiah to the ‘little flock’ of Jews that had not shared in the 
national rejection of Him, ‘Go ye and make disciples of all the 
nations’ (xxviii. 19). 


Tue CHRISTOLOGY OF THE First GOSPEL, 


We have just seen that the impression which this Evangelist 
desires to enforce is that of the rights of sovereignty which Jesus 
possessed, in the first place over the ancient people of Israel, 
and, after their rejection of Him as the Messianic King, over all 
the nations of the earth. The King of Israel by right of descent 
becomes, as Messiah, the King of the world. For He is not 
only the Son of Abraham and the Son of David, but also the 
Son of Man and the Son of God. 

The Son of Man. It is specially in the First Gospel that our 
Lord is set before us as the Son of Man. The expression occurs 
frequently in all four Gospels; about 80 times in all, of which 
40 Or more times are distinct occasions. And the expression is 
invariably used by Christ, and of Himself. No Evangelist 
speaks of Him as the Son of Man, or represents any one as 
addressing Him as the Son of Man, or as mentioning Him by 
this designation. Our Lord, like many Jews of Palestine in His 
day, spoke both Aramaic and Greek, but He, no doubt, 
commonly spoke Aramaic. From this fact, and from the 
assumption that, so far as we know, the difference between ‘son 
of man’ in the sense of ‘human being’ (vids ἀνθρώπου -- ὃ 
ἄνθρωπος) and ‘the Son of Man’ (6 vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου) could not 
be expressed in Aramaic,' it has been argued that our Lord 

1 This is assumption, and not fact. It is more reasonable to assume, from 


the use in Daniel and the Book of Enoch, that it must have been possible to 
express this difference in Aramaic (see Allen, S¢. A/atthew, p.. Ixxiii). 


XXV1 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


never called Himself ‘the Son of Man.’ In passing, it may be 
urged that Christ sometimes spoke Greek, and that it is possible 
that He may have used the very words 6 vids τοῦ ἀνθρώπου of 
Himself. But, in any case, the conclusion drawn from the 
linguistic peculiarities of Aramaic is far short of demonstration, 
and it is incredible. It is contradicted by the whole of the 
evidence that bears directly on the subject. It assumes that, 
although He never used the title, all four Evangelists have 
insisted upon giving it to Him repeatedly: and yet in the 
Gospels we find that ¢/ey never use it of Him, but report that 
ffe frequently used it. On any theory of authorship, the 
Gospels represent the memories of people who must have known 
whether Christ used this remarkable expression of Himself or 
not. And we may be sure that, the further we get away from 
the memories of the first generation of disciples, the less 
likelihood there would be of any such title being invented and 
put into Christ’s mouth. Something expressing His Divinity 
rather than His humanity would have been chosen. We may 
regard the unanimous testimony of the four Gospels as decisive 
respecting His use of the term; and His use of it explains 
that of Stephen (Acts vii. 56), who would know the Gospel 
tradition. 

The compiler of Matthew found the expression used 14 
times in Mark; and he has kept all these! Besides these 
cases, he uses it 19 times. ‘That means that he found it in doth 
his two main sources, Mark and the Logia or collection of 
Utterances (Q); for most of the additional 19 must have come 
from this second source. That again is strong evidence that the 
phrase was used by Christ; and also that our Evangelist 
welcomed the phrase as significant and appropriate; for his 
treatment of Mark shows that he did not scruple to omit, or 
even to alter, what he did not approve. 

The passage in Daniel, ‘One like a son of man came with 
the clouds of heaven, and came to the Ancient of Days,’ and 
received a dominion which is universal and eternal (vii. 13, 14),? 


“Doubts have been thrown, on linguistic grounds, upon the use by our 
Lord of the title Son of Man with reference to Himself. Those doubts have 
receded ; and I do not think that they will ever be urged with so much 
insistence again. . . . Here is an expression which can only go back to our 
Lord Himself, and it bears speaking testimony to the fidelity with which His 
words have been preserved” (Sanday, Zhe Life of Christ in Recent Research, 
pp- 123-125; see also pp. 65-69, 100, 159, 190). 

1 There is an apparent exception in xvi. 21, which is no real exception, 
for the term is used by anticipation in xvi. 13. In 8 cases the phrase is 
common to Mt., Mk., and Lk. In 8 it is common to Mt. and Lk. Ing it 
is found in Mt. alone. In 8 it is found in Lk. alone. Jn. has it 12 times. 
The total for the four Gospels is 81 times. 

2 Dan. vii. 18 seems to show that this ‘Son of Man,’ like the ‘ beasts,” is 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL χχνὴ 


and several passages in Enoch (xlvi., li. 4, lili. 6, cv. 2), which 
possibly are, but probably are not, post-Christian, show that the 
phrase had come to be used of a Divine Messiah. But there is 
nothing specially Christian in this supernatural Messiah. He is 
the Son of God, but He is not the Word, not God. That He is 
to live on earth, or has lived on earth, and died, and risen again, 
is not hinted. It is a Jewish, pre-Christian Messiah that is 
indicated by ‘the Son of Man.’ but it may be securely asserted 
that the term was not commonly recognized among the Jews as a 
name for the Messiah. In that case, our Lord, who carefully 
abstained from calling Himself the Messiah, would never, until 
He had revealed Himself as the Messiah, have used the 
expression of Himself. It is clear that that revelation was made 
very gradually. Up to the question at Cesarea Philippi 
(Mt. xvi. 13-16 = Mk. viii. 27-29 = Lk. ix. 18-20) He had not so 
revealed Himself: and even then He forbade that this partial 
revelation should be made public (Mt. xvi. 20= Mk. viii. 30= 
Lk. ix. 21; Mt. xvii. 9= Mk. ix. 9; comp. Lk. ix. 36). Yet there 
are passages in which ‘the Son of Man’ is used by our Lord 
of Himself before the incident at Czsarea Philippi. There are 
nine such in Matthew. As our Evangelist so often groups things 
independently of chronology, we may believe that some of these 
nine cases, though placed before Czesarea Philippi, really took 
place afterwards. But that can hardly be the case with Mt. ix. 
6= Mk. ii. to=Lk. v. 24, or Mt. xii. 8= Mk. ii. 28=Lk. vi. 5, 
or Mt. xii. 32=Lk. xii. ro. We may be confident, therefore, 
that as Jesus used this term of Himself so early in the Ministry, 
it cannot have been one which was generally known as a name 
for the Messiah. Our Lord seems to have chosen the expression 
because it had mysterious associations which were 2107 generally 
known, and because it was capable of receiving additional 
associations of still greater importance. It was like His parables, 
able to conceal Divine truth from the unworthy, while it revealed 
more and more to those whose hearts were being prepared to 
receive it. It insisted upon the reality of His humanity and His 
unique position as a member of the human race. It hinted at 
supernatural birth. It harmonized with Messianic claims, if it 
did not at once suggest them. And, when it became connected 
with the future glories of the Second Advent, it revealed what it 
had previously veiled respecting the present office and eternal 
pre-existence of Him in whom human nature found its highest 
and most complete expression. Thus it came to indicate the 


to be understood collectively. They are tyrannical dynasties; he is the 
* saints of the Most High.’ Lut in the Psalms of Solomon (xvii, xviii) and in 
the Apoc. of Baruch (Ixxii. 2, 3), as in Enoch, we clearly have an individual, 
who is both King and Judge. 


XXVIll GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


meeting-point between what was humanly perfect with what was 
perfectly Divine.? 
The Sonof God. Apart from the Fourth Gospel (v. 25, ix. 35 
[?], x. 36, xi. 4), we could not be certain that our Lord used this 
expression of Himself; and even with regard to those passages 
we must allow for the possibility that S. John is giving what he 
believed to be Christ’s meaning rather than the words actually 
used. In Mt. xvi. 16, for ‘the Christ, the Son of the living God,’ 
Mk. has only ‘the Christ,’ and Lk. ‘the Christ of God.’ In Mt. 
xxvi. 63 we are on surer ground; there ‘the Christ, the Son of 
God,’ is supported by Mk.’s ‘the Christ, the Son of the Blessed,’ 
and by Lk.’s ‘the Son of God.’ And we have it in the voice from 
heaven at the Baptism (111. 17 = Mk. i. 11 = Lk. iii. 22) and at the 
Transfiguration (xvil. 5 = Mk. ix. 7=Lk. ix. 35); in the devil’s 
challenge (iv. 3, 6=Lk. iv. 3, 9); in the cries of the demoniacs 
(viii. 29 = Mk. v. 7=Lk. vill. 28; comp. Mk. iii. 11); andin the 
centurion’s exclamation (xxvii. 54=Mk. xv. 39). But, allowing 
for all critical uncertainties, we may regard it as securely 
established that expressions of this kind were used both 4y our 
Lord and of Him during His life on earth. Dispassionate study 
of the Gospels, even without the large support which they receive 
in this particular from the Epistles, will convince us that Jesus 
knew that He possessed, and was recognized by some of those 
who knew Him as possessing, a relation of Sonship to God such 
as was given to no other member of the human race. A merely 
moral relationship, in which Jesus reached a higher grade than 
other holy persons, is quite inadequate to explain the definite 
statements and general tone of the Gospels. To take a single 
instance ; the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen indicates 
clearly His own view of His relationship to God who sent Him. 
There had been many sent, but all the others were servants. 
He is the only ‘son,’ the sole ‘ heir,’ the one whose rejection and 
murder at once produces a crisis fatal to the wrong-doers. As 
Dalman says, Jesus ‘‘made it indubitably clear that He was not 
only a but δε Son of God.” 2 The sovereignty of which He was 
the heir was the sovereignty over the world and over all its tenants. 
It is evident that the editor of this Gospel is fully convinced 
of the appropriateness of this far-reaching expression. If ‘the 
Son of the living God’ has been added by him to Peter’s con- 
fession (xvi. 16), it is because he felt that the addition was 
1See Hastings’ DZ. ii. pp. 622 ff. and iv. pp. 579ff.; also Sanday, 
Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 92 ff. ; Calmes, Hvangile selon S. Jean, 
pp. 159ff.; Zahn on Mt. vii. 18; Drummond in /ournal of Theologica: 
Studves, April and July 1got. 
- ? The Words of Jesus, p. 280. See also Hastings’ DZ. ii. pp. 850 f., and 
iv. pp. 570 ff. ; Sanday, Zhe 7276 of Christin Recent Research, pp. 130-133 ; 
Gore, The New Theology and the Old Religion, pp. 87-95. 


THE CHRISTOLOGY OF THE FIRST GOSPEL ΧΧΙΧ 


necessary in order to express the full meaning of what the Apostle 
said. More often than any other Evangelist he records that the 
designation ‘Son of God’ was applied to Him (ii. 15, ili. 17, 
iv. 3, 6, Vili. 29, xiv. 33, XVi. 16, xvii. 5, xxvi. 63, XXVil. 40, 43, 
54). He records the crucial passage in which He speaks of His 
relation to God as one of Sonship in a unique sense (xi. 25-27), 
and also the two occasions on which God acknowledged Him as 
His Son, His Beloved (iii. 17, xvii. 5). And for this he prepares 
his readers by telling of His supernatural birth of a virgin, by 
conception of the Spirit of God, so that by prophetic sanction 
He may be called ‘ God-with-us’ (i. 20-23). And the Evangelist 
finds that this prophetic sanction extends throughout the career 
of the Son of God ; in the chief events of His infancy (ii. 5, 15, 
17, 23), in the chief scene of His Ministry (iv. 14), and in the 
chief details of it. He finds it in John’s proclamation of His 
coming (iii. 3), in His healings (viil. 17), His retirement from 
public notice (xii. 17), the hardness of His hearers’ hearts 
(xiii. 14), His consequent use of parables (xiii. 35), His riding 
into Jerusalem (xxi. 4), the flight of His disciples (xxvi. 31), His 
capture by His enemies (xxvi. 54, 56), and even in the way in 
which the money paid for His blood was spent (xxvii. 9). He 
is ministered to by Angels (iv. 11), who are at His disposal 
(xiii. 41, xxiv. 31), to use or not as He wills (xxvi. 53), and who 
will attend Him in His future glory (xvi. 27, xxv. 31). But the 
final purpose of the Son’s mission was not simply to minister to 
the needs of men in body and soul, but ‘to give His life a 
ransom for many’ (xx. 28) by shedding His blood for them 
(xxvi. 28). In the latter passage he adds to Mark’s report that 
the blood is shed ‘ unto remission of sins.’? 


1“ Tesus felt that He stood “γε such closeness of communion with God the 
Father as belonged to none before or after Him. He was conscious of speaking 
the last and decisive word: He felt that what He did was final, and that no 
one would come after Him. The certainty and simple force of His work, the 
sunshine, clearness and freshness of His whole attitude rest upon this founda- 
tion. We cannot eliminate from His personality, without destroying it, the 
trait of suferprophetic consciousness of the accomplisher to whose person the 
Slight of the ages and the whole destiny of His followers ts linked . . . Let us 
contemplate this sovereign sense of leadership by which Jesus was possessed, 
and the inimitable sureness with which it unfolded itself in every direction. 
He knew how to value the authorities of the past, but He placed Himself 
above them. He was more of account than kings and prophets, than David, 
Solomon, and the Temple. The tradition of the elders He met with His 
* But I say unto you,’ and even Moses was not an authority to whom He gave 
unqualified submission.” 

As Sanday points out, these are extraordinary admissions to be made by a 
writer (Bousset) who contends that the life of our Lord did not overstep the 
limits of the purely human. The facts, as Bousset himself states them, flatly 
contradict his own theory (Zhe Life of Christ in Recent Research, pp. 


189-191). 


ΧΧΧ GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW 


The writer of this Gospel shows us very plainly what Jesus 
Himself thought of His own relations to God and to man. He 
sets Himself above the Law (vy. 22-44, xii. 8) and the Temple 
(xii. 6), and above all the Prophets from Moses to the Baptist, 
for John is greater than the Prophets (xi. 9, 11), and He is 
greater than John (iii. 14, 15, xi. 4-6). The revelation which 
He brings surpasses all that has been revealed before (xis 27), 
and this revelation is to be made known, not merely to the 
Chosen People (x. 6, xy. 24), but to all the nations (viii. rz, 
XXIV. I4, Xxviii. 19). He is the Source of truth and of peace 
(xi. 28-30); and although He Himself is man, He can speak 
of all other men as sinners (vii. 11, xxvi. 45). When the 
Baptist shrinks from admitting Him to his baptism, He does 
not say that He too has need of cleansing, but He quiets 
John’s scruples by quite other means (iii. 15). He prays 
(xiv. 23), and prays for Himself (xxvi. 39, 42, 44), but He 
never prays to be forgiven. He bids others to pray for forgive- 
ness, and for deliverance from temptation (Vi 12, 13, evi. 41), 
but He never asks them to pray for Him. Without proof, and 
without reserve, He makes enormous claims upon the devotion 
of His followers (viii. 22, x. 37, 38, xvi. 24), and He says that 
the way to save one’s life is to lose it for His sake (x. 39, xvi. 25). 
He confers on Peter (xvi. 19) and on all the Apostles (xviii. 19) 
authority to prohibit and to allow in the Church which He is 
about to found ; and in the Kingdom which He has announced 
as at hand (iv. 17) He promises to His Apostles thrones (xix. 28), 
The Church is His Church (xvi. 18), the elect in it are His 
elect (xxiv. 31), the Kingdom is His Kingdom (xvi. 28), and the 
Angels in it are His Angels (xiii. 41, xxiv. 31). Even during 
His life on earth He has authority to forgive sins (ix. 6), and by 
His death He will reconcile the sinful race of mankind to God 
(xxvi. 28). And all this is little more than the beginning. On 
the third day after His death He will rise again (xvi. 21, xvii. 23, 
xx. 19), and then He will possess God’s authority in heaven and 
in earth, and also His power of omnipresence (xxviii. 18, 20). 
At a later period He will come in glory to judge the whole 
world, to reward righteousness and to punish unrepented sin 
(xvi. 27, Xxiv. 30, 38, 47, 51): and the character of Elis 
judgments will depend upon the way in which men have behaved 
towards those who are their brethren, but in His eyes are “iis 
brethren and even as Himself (xxv. 31-46).} 

In most of these passages Mt. is supported by Mk. {π|Ὲ τὸ; 28, 
ill. IIT, 12, viii. 29-31, 34-38 ἸΧΣ 0, 51. ΠΧ Υ} 1- xi. 6, 
xill. 26, 27, xiv. 35-30, 62, xv. 34, xvi. 6), to say nothing 
of the still stronger support to be found in the Fourth Gospel. 

1 See Briggs, The Ethical Teaching of Jesus, pp. 199-206, 222. 


OO (Ὁ... σι 00 00ΒΒΒΗΡΡ ἊΝ 


THE DATE χχχὶ 


We cannot suppose that utterances such as these, so numerous, 
so various, and yet so harmonious, are the invention of this or 
that Evangelist. They are beyond the invention of any 
Evangelist, and few of them are anticipated in the O.T. In 
particular, there is no hint in the O.T. of a second coming of the 
Messiah ; it cannot, therefore, be maintained that either Jesus 
or the Evangelists derived the idea of His coming again from 
type or prophecy. And what makes the hypothesis of invention 
all the more incredible is the combination in Jesus of this 
consciousness of Divine powers with a character of deep 
humility, reticence, and restraint. While uttering these amazing 
claims with a serenity which implies that they are indisputable, 
He is still meek and lowly of heart (xi. 29), always charging 
those who in some measure know who He is that they shall not 
make Him known (xii. 16, xvi. 20, xvil. 9), bidding those whom 
He has healed not to spread abroad His fame (viii. 4, ix. 30, xii. 16), 
declaring that He came not to be ministered unto, but to 
minister (xx. 28), and in His ministering quite ready to be 
stigmatized as the friend of tax-collectors and sinners (ix. 11, 
Xi. 10). 

If, then, criticism accepts the record of His claims and of His 
actions as substantially true, how are we to explain them? 
Was He an ecstatic dreamer, a fanatic under the influence of a 
gigantic delusion? ‘This question may be answered by another. 
Is it credible that the limitless benefits which have blessed, and 
are daily blessing, those who believe that Jesus is what He 
claimed to be, are the outcome of a gigantic delusion? The 
Incarnation explains all that is so perplexing and mysterious in 
the records of Christ’s words and works, and in the subsequent 
history of the society which He founded. But nothing less than 
Divinity will explain the developments in the life of Jesus and of 
His Church. If, therefore, the Incarnation is a fiction, if it is 
not true that God became flesh and dwelt among us, then we 
must assume that flesh became God, and that hypothesis is, 
intellectually, a far greater difficulty than God’s becoming man. 
To men of this generation the Incarnation may seem to be 
impossible, but with God all things are possible.} 


THE DATE. 


The time at which the unknown Evangelist compiled this 
Gospel can be fixed, within narrow limits, with a high degree of 
probability. All the evidence that we have falls into place, if 


Δ δες the notes on v. 21, 22, 48, vii. 23, 24-29, viii. 21, 22, ix. 12, 
X. 16-18, 32, 39, xi. 23, 24, xii. 41, xx. 28, xxii. 34, xxviii. 18; Gore, Zhe 
New Theology and the Old Keligion, pp. 103-108. 


ed 


XXXII GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


we suppose that le completed his work shortly before or (more 
probably) shortly after the destruction of Jerusalem in A.D. 70. 
He used Mark and a translation of the Logia which had been 
collected in ‘Hebrew’ by Matthew. These materials cannot 
well have been in existence much, if at all, before A.p. 65. The 
parenthesis in Mk. xiii. 14, ‘let him that readeth understand,’ is 
probably not to be taken as our Lord’s words, directing attention 
to the saying in Daniel, for in Mark Daniel is not mentioned ; 
the parenthetical words are those of the Evangelist, warning the 
reader of his Gospel that, although the time to which the sign 
refers has not yet come, yet it must be near. This seems to 
give us the time of the first march of the Romans on Jerusalem 
(A.D. 66) as about the date for 5. Mark’s Gospel.’ In xxiv. 15 
our Evangelist retains the parenthesis. But we cannot use the 
same argument as to his date. He does mention ‘ Daniel the 
Prophet,’ and may understand the parenthesis as directing 
attention to the prophecy; or he may have retained Mark’s 
warning, although the reason for it had ceased to exist. Never- 
theless, it is possible that both Gospels were completed before 
ἈΠῸ: 70: 

But our Evangelist seems to have believed that the Second 
Advent would take place very soon, and would be closely con- 
nected with the tribulation caused by the destruction of Jerusalem 
(xvi. 28, xxiv. 29, 34). A belief which caused our Lord’s words 
to be so arranged as to produce this impression, would not have 
long survived the events of a.D. 70. When a year or two had 
passed, and the Second Advent had not taken place, the belief 
would be found to be erroneous. Therefore, while we can hardly 
place this Gospel as early as a.p. 65, we can hardly place it as 
late as A.D. 75. And, on the whole, a little after 70 is rather 
more probable than a little defore. The later date gives more 
time for the publication of Mark and of the Logia in Greek. 
Moreover, ‘the king was wroth, and he sent his armies, and 
destroyed those murderers, and burned their city’ (xxii. 7) may 
be a direct reference to the destruction of Jerusalem regarded 
as a judgment on the murderers of the Messiah. 

And there is nothing in the Gospel which requires us to 
place it later than A.D. 75. The famous utterance, ‘on this rock 
I will build My church’ (xvi. 18), must not be judged by the 
ideas which have gathered round it. ‘On this rock I will build 
My Israel ’—the new Israel, that is to grow out of the old one,— 
is the meaning, a meaning quite in accordance with thoughts 


1 The statement that Eusebius in his Chronicle places the composition 
of the First Gospel a.p. 41=Abraham 2057, is untrue. The date of no 
Gospel is given in the Chronicle. For other statements see the Journal of 
Theological Studies, Jan. 1905, p. 203. 


ι 


THE DATE XXXili 


that were current in the first generation of Christians. Still less 
does ‘tell it unto the Church : and if he refuse to hear the Church 
also’ (xviii. 17) point to a late date. The local community, 
either of Jews or of Jewish Christians, such as existed in Palestine 
from the time of Christ onwards, is what is meant. 

This early date is of importance in weighing the historical 
value of the Gospel. At the time when the compiler was at 
work on it many who had known the Lord were still living. 
Most of His Apostles may have been still alive. Oral traditions 
about Him were still current. Documents embodying still 
earlier traditions were in existence, and some of them were used 
by our Evangelist. It is possible—indeed, it is highly probable 
—that the sayings of Christ, which the Evangelist got from the 
translation of S. Matthew’s Logia, and which form such a large 
portion of the Gospel, are the very earliest information which we 
possess respecting our Lord’s teaching. In them we get back 
nearest to Him, of whom those sent to arrest Him testified : 
‘Never man thus spake,’ Οὐδέποτε ἐλάλησεν οὕτως ἄνθρωπος 
(Jn. vii. 46). 

And it was the presence of this element which made the 
First Gospel such a favourite, and gave it so wide a circulation. 
It quite eclipsed S. Mark, and in almost all collections of the 
Gospels took the first place. For many early Christians it was 
probably the only Gospel that they knew, and it sufficed ; it told 
them so much of what the Lord said. With it in their hands 
they could obey the injunction which came direct from God to 
man: ‘This is My beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; 
hear ye Him’ (xvii. 5). 

There are critics, such as M. Loisy, who would put the date 
of this Gospel some thirty years later, because they are unwilling 
to admit the historical value of its contents. They have a con- 
viction, which is a prejudgment, that certain things cannot have 
happened, and therefore the evidence of those who say that they 
did happen, must be untrustworthy. It must come from witnesses 
‘who cannot be contemporary, but who stated what they con- 
sidered to be edifying, or felt to be in harmony with their own 
beliefs, rather than what they knew to be true. In some cases 
they did not mean their narratives to be accepted as literally 
true; they meant them to be understood as symbolical. In 
other cases they invented stories about Jesus, to show that He 
was what they believed Him to be, viz. the promised Messiah 
and the Son of God. Such theories are not sound criticism. 
The true critic is not fond of ‘cannot’ or ‘must.’ To decide 
a priori that Deity cannot become incarnate, or that incarnate 
Deity must exhibit such and such characteristics, is neither true 
philosophy nor scientific criticism. A Person such as His con- 


XXXIV GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


temporaries and their immediate followers believed Jesus to be 
is required to explain the facts of Christianity and Christendom 
—Christian doctrine and the Christian Church. If their beliefs 
about Him were erroneous, what is the explanation ? 


“THe TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS” AND 
THEIR RELATION TO THE FIRST GOSPEL. 


In the notes will be found frequent quotations from the 
Testaments, of passages which either in substance or wording 
or both are similar to passages in this Gospel. Some of these 
may be mere coincidences; but the number of parallels is so 
large, and in some cases the resemblance is so close, that mere 
coincidence cannot be the explanation of all the similarities. A 
considerable number may be the result of independent use of 
current ideas and phrases: yet even these two hypotheses will 
not account for all the resemblances. The two writings, in the 
forms in which they have come down to us, can hardly be 
independent. Either the Gospel has been influenced by 
the Testaments, or the latter has been influenced by the 
Gospel. Dr. Charles, in his invaluable edition of the Testaments, 
argues for the former hypothesis: a paper in the EL xfositor for 
Dec. 1908 gives reasons for preferring the latter; and in the 
Expositor for Feb. 1909 Dr. Charles repeats his own view. 

The Testaments has long been a literary puzzle. We possess 
the book in Greek, and in subsidiary translations into Armenian, 
Latin, and Slavonic; the Latin translation having been made in 
the thirteenth century, from a Greek MS. of the tenth century, 
by Bishop Grosseteste of Lincoln, who thus made the book 
known to Western Christendom. He believed it to be a genuine 
product of Jewish prophecy, with marvellous anticipations of the 
Messiah ; and this view continued until the Revival of Learning. 
The criticism of that age condemned it as a forgery by a Jewish 
Christian, and for a long time it was neglected as worthless. A 
better criticism has shown that the text is composite, and that 
it consists of a Jewish document which has received Christian 
interpolations and alterations. Neither the Latin nor the 
Slavonic is of much value for critical purposes: in determining 
the text of the Testaments we have to rely chiefly upon the Greek 
MSS. and the MSS. of the Armenian version, and it is froma 
study of these that a-more correct estimate of the Testaments 
can be obtained. 

Thanks to the labours of modern scholars, among whom it 
will suffice to mention Bousset, Charles, Conybeare, Harnack, 
Schiirer, and Sinker, some important questions have been settled 
beyond reasonable dispute. (1) The original work was not 


THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCIIS χχχν 


Greek, but Hebrew. (2) The author of it was not a Christian, 
but a Jew. (3) Numerous Christian features in the ‘Testaments 
have been introduced by changes of wording and by interpola- 
tions, which are the work of Christian scribes. These three 
points are certain; but the details of the process by which the 
book reached its extant forms, and the exact amount of the 
alterations made by Christian hands, are not easy to determine. 

Dr. Charles holds that there were two Hebrew recensions, 
from each of which a Greek translation was made, one of which 
is represented by three of the existing Greek MSS. (¢, ἡ, and ἢ), 
and the other by two Greek MSS. (ὁ and 9); while four Greek 
MSS. (a, ¢, 4 and 4) appear to be derived from both the original 
translations.!. The Christian insertions and alterations are prob- 
ably the result of a repeated process and not the work of any 
one hand. They are more numerous in the Greek than in the 
Armenian text, and at first one is inclined to regard absence from 
the Armenian version as a test. Expressions which are in the 
Greek but not in the Armenian might be assumed to have been 
added to the Greek after the Armenian translation was made. 
The proposed test, however, is of uncertain value, for the 
Armenian translator was an audacious abbreviator. “On almost 
every page,” says Dr. Charles, “he is guilty of unjustifiable 
omissions.” ‘Therefore absence from the Armenian version is 
no sure evidence of an interpolation. 

But what concerns us is the large number of passages in the 
Testaments which resemble passages in the N.T. so closely that 
they cannot all be explained as either mere accidents of wording 
or the result of the same influences of thought and language 
telling upon different writers. There is a residuum, of uncertain 
amount, which cannot reasonably be explained by either of these 
hypotheses. In these cases, either the N.T. has influenced the 
text of the Testaments, or the text of the Testaments has in- 
fluenced that of the N.T. 

Dr. Charles is persuaded that in nearly all the cases the 
N.T. has been influenced by the Testaments. He has drawn 
up lists of parallels between the Testaments on the one hand, 
and the Gospels, Acts, Pauline Epistles, Catholic Epistles, and 
the Apocalypse, on the other: and some of these exhibit 
resemblances which are very striking. Moreover, he has not 
tabulated by any means all the resemblances which exist. 

It is remarkable that the parallels with the Gospels are chiefly 
with the First Gospel, those with Mt. being about twice as 
numerous as those with all the other three put together. It is 


1 From this view Professor Burkitt dissents ( Journal of Theol. St., Oct. 
1908) ; also from the view that S. Paul quotes the Testaments. It is more 
probable that a Christian copyist has put 5. Paul’s words into the Testaments. 


ΧΧΧΥῚ GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW 


also remarkable that the passages in Mt. which show marked 
resemblance with the Testaments “are almost exclusively those 
which give the sayings and discourses of our Lord” (Charles, 
p. Ixxvii). ‘Almost exclusively” may be too strong; but the 
proportion is large. Dr. Charles explains this remarkable fact 
by the hypothesis that our Lord knew the Testaments and 
adopted some of the thoughts and language which can be found 
there. ‘There would be nothing startling in our Lord’s making 
such use of the Testaments, for the moral teaching in the Testa- 
ments is sometimes of a lofty character. Some of His sayings 
may have been suggested by Ecclesiasticus. The two cases, 
however, are not quite parallel. We are quite sure that Ecalesi- 
asticus was written long before the Nativity, and therefore 
Christ may have read it; but we are not sure that the Testa- 
ments had been written when He was born. 

Dr. Charles argues strongly for a year between B.c. 137 and 
Ιου as the date of the original Hebrew of the Testaments, and 
we may rest assured that the book cannot have been written 
earlier than that. Harnack (Chron. d. altchrist. Litt. 1897, 
p. 567) thinks that it cannot well be placed earlier than the 
beginning of the Christian era. The problem of date would be 
easier if the Book of Jubilees could be dated, for the connexion 
between the Testaments and Jubilees is so close that they cannot 
be independent of one another; and Schurer (Gesch. d. /iid. 
Volkes, 3rd ed., iii. p. 259) thinks that it is the author of the Testa- 
ments that has used the Book of Jubilees. There is, however, 
at least one passage in the Testaments which seems to point to 
a time subsequent to the destruction of Jerusalem and of the 
Temple. 

“There the sanctuary (6 vads), which the Lord shall choose, 
shall be desolate (ἔρημος) through your uncleanness, and ye 
shall be captives unto all the nations. And ye shall be an 
abomination to them, and shall receive reproach and eternal 
shame from the righteous judgment of God” (Zevz xv. 1, 2). 

Dr. Charles says, ‘I take these verses as a dona fide predic- 
tion,” and adds, ‘‘The sanctuary was so laid waste under 
Antiochus Epiphanes: 1 Mac. i. 39.” But “γε shall be captives 
unto all the nations” (αἰχμάλωτοι ἔσεσθε εἰς πάντα τὰ ἔθνη) can 
hardly refer to the persecution under Antiochus. What follows 
these two verses seems to point to something much more com- 
prehensive and permanent. ‘And all who hate you shall rejoice 
at your destruction. And if ye were not to receive mercy 
through Abraham, Isaac, and Jacob, our fathers, not one of our 
seed should be left upon the earth.” Comp. Dan v.13. The 
passage looks like a fictitious prophecy made after the capture 
of Jerusalem in A.D. 70; but it is possible that it is an zwterpola- 


THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE ΡΑΤΕΙΛΆΘΗΘ χχχυὶ 


tion inserted after that event, and not part of the original work. 
We must be content to leave the date of the Hebrew original 
an open question, as also the date of the earliest translation into 
Greek. And there is also the question whether the Greek 
translator was a Jew or a Christian. If the latter, then the 
Christianizing of the Testaments may have begun at once; but 
in any case, whether it began with the translator or with subse- 
quent copyists, it does not seem to have taken place all at one 
time. 

It is now admitted by every one that there has been consider- 
able manipulation of the Greek texts of the Testaments in order 
to give them a Christian tone. There have been changes ot 
wording, and there have been insertions. May not many of the 
cases in which the Testaments resemble the N.T. have come 
about in the same manner? May we not suppose that Chris- 
tians have assimilated the wording of the Testaments to the 
wording of the Gospels and Epistles? This possibility is all 
the more probable when the change or the insertion seems to 
have been made somewhat late, because it is found in the later, 
but not in the earlier authorities for the Greek text of the Testa- 
ments; and this Dr. Charles himself points out (see note on 
Judah xxv. 4). Why may it not have taken place as soon as 
the Testaments began to be Christianized? If Christians would 
put their own words into the Testaments in order to make them 
testify of Christ, much more would they be likely to put the 
words of the N.T. into them. 

This hypothesis, that it is the N.T. which has influenced the 
Testaments rather than the Testaments which has influenced 
the N.T. has considerable advantages. It solves one difficulty 
which the other hypothesis fails to solve, and it avoids another 
difficulty into which the other hypothesis leads us. 

1. Why do the parallels with Mt. so greatly exceed in number 
the parallels with the other Gospels? In particular, why do the 
large majority of the passages in the Testaments which recall 
our Lord’s teaching recall that teaching as recorded in Mt.? 
If Christ knew the Testaments, and adopted much of its moral 
instruction and language, why does this influence show itself so 
frequently in His sayings as reported in the First Gospel, and 
so seldom in His sayings as reported in the other three? If the 
Testaments did influence the form of Christ’s teaching, this 
influence would be evident, if not in all Gospels alike, at any 
rate in Lk. almost as often asin Mt. But if it was the Gospels 
which influenced the Testaments, then at once we see why it 
was Mt. which exercised the most influence. The Gospel 
according to Matthew, as soon as it was published, became 
most popular. It caused the Gospel according to Mark, which 


XXXVII1 GOSPEL ACCGRDING TO S. MATTHEW 


was in the field before it, to be almost neglected; and the 
Third Gospel never attained to equal popularity. In the 
Christian literature of the first centuries, quotations from Mt. 
and allusions to Mt. are far more frequent than references to 
the other Gospels; perhaps twice as frequent as references to 
Lk. or Jn., and six or seven times as frequent as references to 
Mk. This fact goes a long way towards showing that it is the 
Gospels that have influenced the Testaments. If they did so, 
then the influence of Mt. would be sure to be greater than that 
of the other three ; which is exactly what we find. 

2. If the influence of the Testaments on the Gospels, on 
the Pauline Epistles, and on the Catholic Epistles was so great 
as to produce scores of similarities in thought and wording, this 
influence would not be likely to cease quite suddenly as soon 
as the N.T. was complete; it would probably have continued 
to work and to manifest itself in early Christian writings. But, 
as Dr. Charles himself points out, “the Testaments have not 
left much trace on Patristic literature” (p. lxxv). He has col- 
lected seven apparent parallels between the Shepherd of Hermas 
and the Testaments, and he thinks that these suffice to show 
that Hermas knew and used the Testaments. The conclusion 
may be correct, but the evidence is not convincing. Three 
of the parallels may be mere coincidences; and in two cases 
the agreement with passages in Scripture is closer than the 
agreement with the Testaments, so that we may be sure that 
Hermas is recalling the Bible and not the Testaments. Thus, 
‘Do not partake of God’s creature, in selfish festivity, but give 
a share to those who are in want” may come from Job xxxi. 16, 
Prov. xxil. 9, Ep. of Jer. 28, or Lk. iii. 11; and “‘Speak against 
no one” certainly comes from Prov. xii. 13 or Jas. iv. 11 rather 
than from Jssachar iil. 4. Of the two remaining parallels one 
is striking: ‘“‘ There are two angels with man, one of righteous- 
ness and one of wickedness” (JZand. νι. ii. 1): ‘Two spirits 
wait upon man, the spirit of truth and the spirit of error” (/udah 
xx. 1). But the former may come from Barnabas xviii. 1, and 
perhaps Origen thought so, for he quotes first Hermas and then 
Barnabas (De Prin. 11. 11. 4); and both in Barnabas and in 
Hermas we have ἄγγελοι and not πνεύματα. ‘The spirit of 
truth and the spirit of error” is verbatim the same as 1 Jn. iv. 6, 
and this rather than Hermas may be the source of Judah’s 
words. If the parallels between Hermas and the Testaments 
suffice to make dependence probable, it is possible that Hermas 
is the original. ‘The Shepherd was written about a.p. 150 and 
quickly became very popular. Before a.p. 200 it was better 
known than 2 and 3 Jn., Jude, or 2 Peter, and was often regarded 
as Scripture. It is not impossible that in some of the parallels 


THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS χχχὶχ 


it is the Shepherd that has influenced the text of the Testaments. 
In any case, it remains somewhat uncertain whether Hermas 
knew the Testaments. 

There is a fragment (No. xvii.) attributed (but perhaps 
wrongly, as Harnack thinks) to Irenzeus, which is thought to 
refer to the Testaments: “ But from Levi and Judah according 
to the flesh He was born as king and priest.” This doctrine 
about the Messiah is found in Simeon vii. 1, 2. But, as neither 
the authorship of the fragment nor the reference of the passage 
is certain, this is somewhat slender evidence for the hypothesis, 
which in itself is quite credible, that the Testaments were known 
to Irenzus. 

Not until we reach Origen, and the later years of his life, do 
we get an indisputable reference to the Testaments. In his 
Homilies on Joshua (xv. 6), which were written about A.D. 245-- 
50, he mentions the Testaments of the Twelve Patriarchs by 
name, as a book which, whatever its merits, was not included in 
the Canon. He calls it “a certain book,” as if he did not much 
expect his readers to know it. The fact that he nowhere else 
quotes it need not mean that he himself did not know it well, 
but only that he did not like it. Its muddling Christology, the 
result of Christianizing a Jewish book by frequent re-touching, 
would not attract him. 

A single passage in Origen, therefore, written in the middle 
of the third century, is the earliest certain evidence of a Christian 
writer being acquainted with a book which is supposed to have 
influenced, and in some cases to have influenced very strongly 
indeed, nearly every writer in the N.T. Let us leave Hermas 
and Irenzus on one side, or even admit that they knew it. 
How is it that we do not find clear traces of this most influential 
document in either Clement of Rome, or Ignatius, or Polycarp, 
or Barnabas, or the Letter to Diognetus, or the Didache, or 
Aristides, or Justin Martyr, or Athenagoras, or Tertullian, or 
Clement of Alexandria? The total absence of traces of 
influence between A.D. 95 and 150, and the very scanty signs 
of possible influence between 150 and 250 render it somewhat 
improbable that our Lord and St. Paul, to mention no others, 
frequently adopted the thoughts and words of this apocryphal 
Jewish writing. What can explain the sudden and almost total 
cessation of influence upon Christian literature about a.D. 100? 
If, however, it was the writings of the N.T. which influenced the 
early Christians who adapted the Testaments to Christian 
sentiment by frequent alterations, we have an_ intelligible 
explanation of the literary facts. These adaptations are known 
to have taken place, and seem to have begun early, for it was 
probably a Christianized edition that was known to Origen; 

d 


xl GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


otherwise he would hardly have raised the question about its 
being included in the Canon or not. 

How could the Testaments exercise such enormous influence on 
the N.T.as Dr. Charles supposes, and yet, with the possible excep- 
tions of Hermas and Irenzeus, leave no trace of being known to 
any writer earlier than Origen? or to writers later than Origen ? 

Dr. Charles answers this question by asking several others. 
“How is it that the Gospel of Mark exercised such a pre- 
ponderating influence on the First and Third Gospels and yet 
has left no certain trace in Barnabas, the Didache, 1 Clement, 
Ignatius, Polycarp, 2 Clement? Or, again, how is it that the 
Similitudes of Enoch exercised such a great influence on the 
Fourth Gospel and certain passages of the Synoptics, and yet 
are not quoted by a single Apostolic Father? Or how is it that 
1 Thessalonians, the earliest Pauline Epistle, has left no trace on 
Barnabas, the Didache, 1 Clement, Polycarp, 2 Clement? I 
need not further press this argument” (Zxfosztor, Feb. 1909, 
pp: £17, 11S). 

None of the three instances given by Dr. Charles is a true 
parallel; for two reasons. No one asserts that Mark or 
1 Thessalonians has had such an influence upon nearly all 
the writers of the N.T. as Dr. Charles attributes to the Testa- 
ments; and perhaps he himself would not attribute as much 
influence to the Similitudes of Enoch as he attributes to the 
Testaments. Secondly, it could not be said that these three 
writings have left no trace of influence upon any Christian writer 
between S. John and Origen, with the possible exception of 
Hermas and Irenzeus. Mark was probably known to Hermas, 
Justin Martyr, and some of the early Gnostics; certainly to 
Irenzeus, Clement of Alexandria, Tertullian, and other writers 
in abundance. 1 Thessalonians was perhaps known to Ignatius, 
Hermas, and the author of the Didache; certainly to Marcion, 
Irenzeus, Clement, Tertullian, and later writers. And Dr. 
Charles has shown that Enoch by no means passed into oblivion 
between A.D. Too and 250, or even later. Therefore the literary 
history of these three writings does not explain what is supposed 
to have taken place respecting the Testaments. 

Dr. Charles supposes that some one has asked “how it is 
that the Testaments have so largely influenced 5. Matthew and 
S. Luke, and have hardly, if at all, influenced 5. Mark.” That 
question is easily answered, but it is not the question which has 
been raised. The question is, How is it that the Testaments 
(according to the view of Dr. Charles) have influenced S. Matthew 
about twice as much as they have influenced the other three 
Gospels put together? That is a question which deserves an 
answer. Let us look at some of the facts. 


THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE PATRIARCHS χὶὶ 


MATTHEW. 


ii, 2. Where is He that is born 
King of the Jews, for we saw His 
star in its rising (τὸν ἀστέρα ἐν τῇ 
ἀνατολῇ). : 

iii. 14. I have need to be baptized 
of Thee, and comest Thou to me? 

16. Lo, the heavens were opened 
unto Him (ἠνεῴχθησαν οἱ οὐρανοί), 
and He saw the Spirit of God de- 
scending as a dove, and coming upon 
Him; and lo, a voice out of the 
heavens, saying, This is My beloved 
Son, in whom 1 am well pleased. 


iv. 11. Then the devil leaveth 
Him; and behold Angels came and 
ministered unto Him. 


iv. 16. The people which sat in 
darkness saw a great light, and to 
them which sat in the region and 
shadow of death, to them did light 


spring up. 
Υ, ἡ. Blessed are the poor in spirit, 
for theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven. 


4. Blessed are they that mourn, for 
shall be comforted. 
Blessed are they that hunger 
(ol πεινῶντες), for they shall be filled 
opracOijcovrat). 
= are are they that pi been 
persecuted for righteousness’ sake. 
19. Wiser stull do and teach 
them, he shall be called great in the 
kingdom of heaven. 
21. Ye have heard that it was said 
to them of old time, Thou shalt not 
kill ; and whosoever shall kill shall 


be in danger of the judgment : 


22. but I say unto you, that every 
one who is angry with his brother 
shall be in danger of the judgment, 


Tue TESTAMENTS, 


Levi xviii. 3. His star shall arise 
in heaven as of a king (ἀνατελεῖ 
ἄστρον αὐτοῦ ἐν οὐρανῷ ὡς βασιλέως). 

Num, xxiv. 17. ἀνατελεῖ ἄστρον. 

Judah xxiv. 1. And no sin shall be 
found in him. 

2. And the heavens shall be opened 
unto him (ἀνοιγήσονται ἐπ᾽ αὐτῷ ol 
οὐρανοί), to pour out the spirit, the 
blessing of the Holy Father. 

Levi xviii. 6. The heavens shall be 
opened, and from the temple of glory 
shall come upon him sanctification, 
with the Father’s voice as from 
Abraham to Isaac. 

7. And the glory of the Most High 
shall be spoken over him, and the 
spirit of understanding and sancti- 
fication shall rest on him in the 
water. 

13. And the Lord shall rejoice in 
His children, and be well pleased in 
his beloved ones for ever. 

Naphtali viii. 4. The devil shall 
flee from you. . . . And the Angels 
shall cleave to you. 

Levi iii. 5. The hosts of the Angels 
are ministering. 

xviii. 4. He shall shine forth as the 
sun in the earth, and shall take away 
all darkness from under heaven. 


Judah xxv. 4. They who were poor 
for the Lord’s sake shall be made 
rich. 

And they who have died in grief 
shall arise in joy. 

And they who have been in want 
(ἐν welvy) shall be filled (xoprac- 
θήσονται). 

Dan iv. 6. If ye suffer loss volun- 
tarily or involuntarily, be not vexed. 

Levi xiii. 9. Whoever teaches noble 
things and does them shall be en- 
throned with kings. 

Gad iv. 6. Hatred would slay the 
living, and those that have sinned in 
a small thing it would not suffer to 
live. 

v. 1. Hatred therefore is evil, for it 
maketh small things to be great. 

5. Fearing to offend the Lord, he 
will do no wrong to any man, even in 
thought. 


ΧΙ 


28. Every one that looketh on a 
woman to lust after her hath com- 
mitted adultery with her already in 
his heart. 

42. Give to him that asketh thee, 
and from him that would borrow of 
thee turn not thou away. 


44. Love your enemies, and pray 
for them that persecute you; that ye 
may be sons of your Father which is 
in heaven. 


vi. 10. Thy will be done, as in 
heaven, so on earth. 


vi. 14. Ifye forgive men their tres- 
passes, your heavenly Father will also 
forgive you. 


16. [The hypocrites] disfigure their 
faces (ἀφανίζουσι τὰ πρόσωπα αὐτῶν). 


19. Lay not up for yourselves 
treasure upon the earth ; but lay up 
for yourselves treasures in heaven. 

22, 23. If thine eye be arse (ἐὰν ὁ 
ὀφθαλμός σου ἁπλοῦς ἢ). But if 
thine eye be evil (ἐὰν δὲ ὁ  épOaApds 
σου πονηρὸς ἢ), thy whole body shall 
be full of darkness (σκοτεινόν). 


24. No man can be a slave (dov- 
λεύειν) to two masters. SMe 
cannot serve God and mammon. 

vil. 2. With what measure ye mete, 
it shall be measured unto you. 


vill. 17. Himself took our infirmi- 
ties, and bare our diseases. 


24-27. The Storm on the Lake. 


ix. 8. When the multitudes saw it, 
they were afraid and glorified (ἐδόξα- 
cav) God. 

x. I. He gave them authority over 
unclean spirits. 

16. Become therefore wise (γίνεσθε 
οὖν φρόνιμοι) as serpents. 


39. He that loseth his life for My 
sake shall find it. 


GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


Benjamin vii. 2. He that hath a 
pure mind in love looketh not on a 
woman with thought of fornication. 


Zebulon vii. 2. Show compassion 
and mercy without partiality to all, 
and grant to every man with a good 
heart. 

Joseph xviii. 2. If any one willeth 
to do evil to you, do you in doing 
him good pray for him, and ye shall 
be redeemed of the Lord from all 
evil. 

Naphtali iii, 2. Sun moon and 
stars change not their order; so do 
ye also change not the law of God in 
the disorderliness of your doings. 

Zebulon viii. 1. Have compassion 
towards every man in mercy, that the 
Lord also may have compassion and 
mercy on you. 

6. [The spirit of revenge] dis- 
figureth the face (τὸ πρόσωπον ἀφαν- 
ἰζει). 

Levi xiii. 5. Do righteousness upon 
the earth, that ye may find it in 
heaven. 

Issachar iii. 4. Walking in single- 
ness of eye (ἐν ὀφθαλμῶν ἀπλότητι). 

iv. 6. He walketh in singleness of 
soul, shunning eyes that are evil 
(ὀφθαλμοὺς πονηρού5). 

Benjamin iv. 2. An eye full of 
darkness (σκοτειν dv). 

Judah xviii. 6. For he is a slave 
(δουλεύει) to two opposite passions, 
and cannot obey God. 

Zebulon v. 3. Have mercy in your 
hearts, because whatever a man doeth 
to his neighbour, so the Lord will deal 
with him. 

Joseph xvii. 7. All their suffering 
was my suffering, and all their sick- 
ness was my infirmity. 

Naphtali vi. 4-9. Zhe Storm on the 
Sea. 

Judah xxv. 5. All the peoples shall 
glorify (δοξάσουσι) the Lord for ever. 


Benjamin v. 2. 
will fly from you. 

Naphtali viii. 10. Become therefore 
wise in God and prudent (γίνεσθε οὖν 
σόφοι ἐν Θεῷ καὶ φρόνιμοι). 

Judah xxv. 4. They who are put to 
death for the Lord’s sake shall awake 
to life. 


The unclean spirits 


THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE ΡΑΤΕΙΑΆΘΗΒ xliii 


xi. 19. The Son of Man came eat- 
ing and drinking. 


27. He to whom the Son willeth to 
reveal Him. 


For I am meek and lowly 
(πρᾷος καὶ ταπεινός) of heart. 


xii. 13. Withered Hand restored. 


35. The evil man out of his evil 
treasure bringeth forth evil things. 


45. Then goeth he and taketh with 
himself seven other spirits more 
wicked than himself, and they enter 
in and dwell there. 

xiii, 40. In the end of the world 
(ἐν τῇ συντελείᾳ τοῦ αἰώνοΞ). 

xv. 14. If the blind lead the blind 
both shall fall into a pit (εἰς βόθυνον). 


xvi. 27. He shall render unto 
every man according to his deeds. 


27. The Son of Man shall come in 
the glory of His Father with His 
Angels. 

xviii. 15. If thy brother sin against 

thee, go show him his fault between 
him and thee alone. Comp. Lk. 
xvii. 3. 
35. So shall also My heavenly 
Father do unto you, if ye forgive not 
every one his brother from your 
hearts. 

xix. 28. In the regeneration. . . 

Ὁ also shall sit upon twelve thrones, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel. 


29. And every one that hath left 
houses, or brethren, or sisters .. . 
for My Name’s sake shall receive 
manifold (πολλαπλασίονα). 

xxii. 15. They took counsel how 
they might ensnare (παγιδεύσωσιν) 
Him in His talk. 

Thou shalt love the Lord thy God 
with all thy heart. 

39. Thou shalt love thy neighbour 
as thyself. 

xxiii. 34. Persecution foretold. 

38. Behold your house is left unto 
you [desolate]. 


Asher vii. 3. The Most High shall 
visit the earth, coming Himself as 
man, with men eating and drinking. 

Levi xviii. 2. The Lord shall raise 
up a new priest, to whom all the 
words of the Lord shall be revealed. 

Dan. vi. 9. For he is true and 
long-suffering, meek and lowly 
(πρᾷος καὶ ταπεινό5). 

‘Simeon ii. 13. Withered Hand 
restored, 

Asher i. 9. Seeing that treasure of 
the inclination hath been filled with 
an evil spirit. 

Reuben ii. 2. Seven spirits there- 
fore were given against man. 

Naphtali viii. 6. And the devil 
dwelleth in him as his own vessel. 

Levi x. 2. At the end of the world 
(τῇ συντελείᾳ τῶν αἰώνων). 

Reuben ii. 9. Desire leadeth the 
youth as a blind man to a pit (ἐπὶ 
βόθρον). 

Levi xviii. 2. He shall execute ἃ 
righteous judgment upon the earth for 
a multitude of days. 

5. The Angels of the glory of the 
presence of the Lord shall be glad in 
him. 

Gad vi. 3. If any one sin against 
thee, speak peace to him, and in thy 
soul hold not guile, and if he repent 
and confess forgive him. 

7. But if he is shameless and per- 
sists in his wickedness, even so for- 
give him from the heart and give to 
God the taking vengeance. 

Judah xxv. 1. Abraham and Isaac 
and Jacob shall arise unto life, and I 
and my brethren shall be chiefs of the 
tribes of Israel. 

Zebulon vi. 6. For he who gives 
a share to his neighbour, receives 
manifold (πολλαπλασίονα) from the 
Lord. 

Joseph vii. 1. She looked about 


how to ensnare (wayidetoat) me. 


Dan v. 3. Love the Lord in all your 
life, 
and one another in a true heart. 


Judah xxi. 9. Persecution foretold. 

Levi xv. 1. Therefore the Temple, 
which the Lord shall choose, shall 
be desolate through your unclean- 
ness. 


xliv GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


xxiv. 11, 24. alse Prophets fore- 
told. 

xxiv. 29. The sun shall be 
darkened. Comp. xxvii. 45. 

31. They shall gather together 
(ἐπισυνάξουσιν) His elect from the four 
winds. 

xxv. 33. He shall set the sheep on 
His right hand, but the goats on the 
left. 


35. I was an hungered, and ye gave 
Me meat; I was a stranger, and ye 
took Me in; 36. I was sick, and ye 
visited Me; I was in prison, and ye 
came unto Me. 


xxvi. 70. I know not what thou 
sayest. 

xxvii. 6. It is not lawful to put 
them into the treasury, since it is the 
price of blood (τιμὴ αἵματος). 

24. I am innocent (ἀθᾷός εἰμι) of 
the blood of this righteous man. 


28. They stripped Him and put on 
Him a scarlet robe. 


31. They took off from Him the 
robe, and put on Him His own 
garments, and led Him away to 
crucify Him. 

26. When he had scourged Jesus. 

30, 31. They smote (ἔτυπτον) Him 
on the head. And when they had 
mocked Him. 

46. Why hast Thou forsaken Me? 
(ἱνατί με ἐγκατέλιπες ;). 


51. The veil of the Temple was rent 
(τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ ἐσχίσθη). 


51. The rocks were rent (αἱ πέτραι 
ἐσχίσθησαν). 

45. There was darkness all over 
the land. 

51. The earth was shaken (ἡ γῆ 
ἐσείσθη). 

Xxvill. 2. There was a great earth- 
quake (σεισμος ἐγένετο péyas). 

vili. 24. There was ἃ great earth- 
quake in the sea (σεισμὸς ἐγένετο ἐν τῇ 
θαλάσσῃ). 


Judah xxi. 9. Halse Prophets fore- 
told, 

Leviiv. 1. The sun being darkened 
(h, A). Other texts, ‘quenched.’ 

Naphtali viii. 3. Shall gather 
together (ἐπισυνάξει) the righteous 
from among the Gentiles. 

Benjamin x. 6. Then shall ye see 
Enoch, Noah, and Shem, and 
Abraham, and Isaac, and Jacob, 
rising on the right hand in glad- 
ness. 

Joseph i. 5. I was kept in starva- 
tion, and the Lord Himself nourished 
me; 6. I was alone, and God com- 
forted me ; I was sick, and the Lord 
visited me ; I was in prison, and my 
God showed favour unto me. 

ΧΙ, 2. I know not what thou 
sayest. 

Zebulon iii. 3. We will not eat it, 
because it is the price of our brother’s 
blood (τιμὴ αἵματος). 

Levi x. 2. I am innocent (ἀθῴῷός 
εἰμι) of your ungodliness and trans- 
gression. 

Zebulon iv. 10. They stripped off 
from Joseph his coat ... and put 
upon him the garment of a slave. 

Benjamin ii. 3. When they had 
stripped me of my coat, they gave 
me to the Ishmaelites; and they 
gave me a loin-cloth, and scourged 
ine and bade me run. 

Joseph ii. 3. Iwas smitten (ἐτύφθην), 
I was scoffed at. Comp. Lk. xxiii. 
35: 

4. The Lord doth not forsake 
(οὐκ ἐγκαταλείπει) those that fear 
Him. 

6. For a little space He departeth, 
to try the inclination of the soul. 

Levi x. 3. The veil of the Temple 
shall be rent (σχισθήσεται τὸ καταπέ- 
TUT {LG TOU ναοῦ). 

iv. I. When the rocks are being 
rent (πετρῶν σχιζομένων) and the sun 
darkened. Other texts, ‘quenched.’ 


iii. 9. The earth and the abysses 
are shaken (ἡ γῇ καὶ ai ἄβυσσοι 
σαλεύονται). 


THE TESTAMENTS OF THE TWELVE ΡΑΤΕΙΔΛΈΘΗΘ χὶν 


These tables give us more than sixty instances of resemblances 
between the Testaments and the First Gospel, of which nearly 
forty are concerned with the words of our Lord. More than 
twenty come from passages which have no corresponding 
passage in either Mk. or Lk. And in about ten of those which 
are in both Mt. and Lk. the possible parallel in the Testaments 
is closer to Mt. than to Lk. ‘The preponderating similarity 
between the Testaments and Mt. is therefore strong, and it can 
be readily explained, if it was the Gospels which influenced the 
Testaments. What is the explanation, if the Testaments 
influenced the Gospels? 

In several instances the Armenian version omits the words 
which produce the resemblance ; and that fact creates a certain 
amount of probability that the resemblance is due to changes 
which are later than that*version. Again, in some of the 
passages where these resemblances are found there are differ- 
ences of reading, and the resemblance is confined to one of the 
variants. Zedu/on viii. 6 (18) is instructive. We have three 
readings: καὶ τὸ πρόσωπον ἀφανίζει (ch 1): τὴν ὕπαρξιν ἀφανίζει 
(aef, A, S!): 6 γὰρ μνησίκακος σπλάγχνα ἐλέους οὐκ ἔχει (ὁ 9). 
The first of these recalls Mt. vi. 16; the last recalls Lk. i. 78. 
Are we to suppose that Mt. knew the one reading, and Lk. the 
other? Or did one scribe of the Testaments remember Mt., and 
the other Lk.? In Lez? x. 3 (59) Dr. Charles himself suggests 
that instead of σχισθήσεται τὸ καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ we ought 
perhaps to read σχισθήσεται τὸ ἔνδυμα, for ἔνδυμα is found in 
most texts: and certainly “‘so as not to cover your shame” is a 
more fitting consequence of rending garments than of rending 
the Temple veil. We may therefore suppose that the reading τὸ 
καταπέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ comes from Mt. xxvii. 51=Mk. xv. 38= 
Lk. xxiii. 45, rather than that the phrase in the Gospels comes from 
the Testaments. In Benjamin viii. 2 (13) we have three different 
readings, differing in the amount of resemblance to Mt. v. 28, one 
having very little resemblance. In Jssachar viii. 4 and iv. 6 (20) 
the words which produce the resemblance are wanting in im- 
portant witnesses. In Asher vii. 3 (28) Dr. Charles marks “as 
man, with men eating and drinking” as an interpolation ; and 
he does the same in Dan vi. 9 (30) with “for he is true and 
long-suffering, meek and lowly.” May we not suspect that some 
of the other resemblances are due to a similar cause? And it 
should be noticed that most of the resemblances are in Zev? and 
Judah, just the two Testaments which would be most likely to 
be Christianized; while very few are to be found in Simeon, 
Issachar, or Asher. , 

To sum up. A few of these similarities between the Testa- 
ments and the N.T. may be accidental coincidences. A great 


xlv1 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW 


many may be due to independent employment of current ideas 
and phrases. The remainder may be the production of 
Christian translators or copyists, who consciously or un- 
consciously assimilated the wording of the Testaments to the 
words of the N.T., and especially to the words of the First 
Gospel. 

Conybeare regards it as proved that the Greek text of the 
Testaments is ‘‘a paraphrase of an old Aramaic midrash, in- 
terpolated by generations of Christians” (/Jew. Encycl. xii. p. 
113): see Journal of Theological Studies, April 1909, p. 423. 
In paraphrasing, there is almost boundless opportunity for 
assimilating the language of the original to language which, to 
the paraphraser, may be either more familiar, or may seem to 
be either more pleasing or more edifying. Paraphrasing and 
interpolating will account for a large number of the resemblances 
between the Testaments and the New Testament. See J. Arm. 
Robinson, Hastings’ DB. ii. p. 501%. 


foo GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 
Ss. MATTHEW 


I. Il. THE BIRTH AND INFANCY OF THE MESSIAH. 
I. 1-17. His Genealogy. 


‘Tue Book of the Generation of Jesus Christ.’ This title is 
probably meant to cover more than the mere pedigree, but 
perhaps not the whole Gospel. We may regard it as a heading) 
to the first two chapters, the Gospel of the Infancy. In Gen., 
vy. 1, ‘the book of the generations of Adam’ covers not only the 
genealogy from Adam to Japhet mixed with a certain amount of 
narrative, but also the narrative of ‘the wickedness of man’ in 
the time of Noah (vy. 1-vi. 8).1_ The Evangelist no doubt had 
the Septuagint of Genesis in his mind when he penned this title ; 
and it was probably from the Septuagint that he compiled the 
pedigree: but he may have found it already compiled in seme 
Jewish archives. Jews are tenacious of their pedigrees; and, 
even if the statement of Julius Africanus (Eus. 7 Z. i. 7) be 
correct, that Herod the Great ordered the genealogies of old 
Jewish families to be destroyed, in order to hide the defects of 
his own pedigree, the statement causes no difficulty. Such an 
order would be evaded, and in any case there were the Scrip- 
tures, in which the descent could be traced. Josephus was able 
to give his pedigree, as he found it “described in the pud/ic 
records” (Vita, 1). The evidence of Africanus is valuable, in 
that he claims to have got information from the family, who 
gloried in their noble extraction, and in his referring doth 
genealogies (that in Lk. as well as that in Mt.), as @ matter of 
course, to Joseph. The theory that the one in Lk. is Mary’s is not 


1 At Gen. vi. 9 we have a second title: ‘These are the generations of 


’ Noah.’ In Mt. there is no second title, which is in favour of the view that 


43 


the title in ver. 1 is meant to cover the whole Gospel, 
I 


2 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [1.1-17 


worthy of consideration. Neither Jew nor Gentile would derive 
the birthright of Jesus from His mother. In the eye of the law, 
Jesus was the heir of Joseph, and therefore it is Joseph’s pedigree 
that is given. As the heir of Joseph, Jesus was the heir of David ; 
and hence there is no inconsistency in the fact that precisely the 
two Gospels which record the Virgin-birth are the two which give 
the pedigree of Joseph. That Jesus was the ‘son of David’ 
seems to have been generally admitted (xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31, 
Xxl. 9, 15), and we do not read that His Messiahship was ever 
questioned on the ground that He was not descended from 
David. On the other hand, our Lord Himself does not seem 
to have based any claim upon this descent, which might have 
looked like a claim to an earthly kingdom. Indeed; the difficult 
passage, Xxll. 43-45, shows that He was willing that the Davidic 
descent of the Messiah should be questioned, rather than that 
it should be supposed that the Messiah was a mere political 
deliverer. Whether or no the details in the two pedigrees are in 
all cases correct, there need be no doubt that the main facts 
which they illustrate are historical, viz. that Joseph was of 
Davidic origin, and therefore descended from the father of the 
Jewish race and from the father of mankind: and it is quite 
possible that Mary also was descended from David.? 

The fondness of our Evangelist for numerical groups, and 
especially for triplets, has been pointed out (p. xix). Hence the 
threefold division of the pedigree. The choice of fourteen may 
be explained as either twice seven, or as the numerical value of 
the three letters in the Hebrew name of David; 4+6+4=14.3 
In our present text the third division has only thirteen names, 
and elsewhere there is compression in order to get the right 
number: ‘begat’ does not in all cases mean ‘was the actual 
father of.’ But the precise points of division are significant. In 
David (ver. 6) the family became royal; at the Captivity the 
royalty was lost (ver. 11); in ‘Jesus, who is called Christ’ (ver. 
16), the royalty is recovered. 

{- The names of women, Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, and the wife of 
Uniah, inserted in the pedigree are remarkable. Ruth was a 
Moabitess and not a Jewess, and the other three had been guilty 
of gross sins. They are evidently mentioned of deliberate 
purpose. But what purpose? It is difficult to believe that the 


1 The theory is earlier than Annius of Viterbo (c. A.D. 1490). See on 
Rev. iv. 7 in the commentary attributed to Victorinus (Migne, P. Z. 
Vv. 324). 

2 In the second century it was commonly believed that Mary was of the 
family of David; Justin M., 77»). 43, 45, 100; Irenceus, III. xxi. 5; Tert. 
Adv. Jud. 9; Ascension of Isaiah, x. 2; Gosp. of the Nativity of Mary, 
iT 


3 Interpreter, January 1906, p. 199. 


I. 18-25] | THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 3 


Evangelist is suggesting a parallel between them and the Virgin 
mother; and it is not easy to see how their inclusion in the 
genealogy is any answer to the slander which circulated among 
the Jews in the second century, and possibly in the first, that 
Jesus was born out of wedlock and was the son of a paramour. 
It is more likely that this parade of names that might be 
supposed to be unfit for insertion in the pedigree of the Messiah 
is intended to teach that He who ‘came not to call the righteous,\ 
but sinners’ (ix. 13), and who so commended the faith of those 
who were not of Israel (viii. 10, xv. 28; comp. Lk. xvii. 18, 
xix. 5), was Himself descended from flagrant sinners and from ΑἹ 
stranger. 

' The difficulties connected with the details of the two 
pedigrees have been abundantly discussed in commentaries 
and in Dictionaries of the Bible, as well as in separate treatises, 
and to these the reader is referred. It is sufficient to say here 
that, although the difficulties are not such as to convict the 
pedigrees of being fictitious, it cannot be said that the proposed 
solutions of the difficulties are in most cases satisfactory. That 
there are errors in both lists of names is neither unlikely nor very 
important. Errors respecting matters of far greater moment can 
be shown to exist in the Bible, and there is nothing that need 
perplex us if errors are found here. 


The reading in ver. 16 is uncertain, and it is possible that no Greek MS. 
has preserved the original text. If in expressing the legal relationship 
between Jesus and Joseph the Evangelist used words which might be under- 
stood as expressing actual paternity, such words would be likely to be 
changed, and perhaps altered in more ways than one. Whatever the reading, 
it is quite certain from what follows what the writer means. See Sanday, 
Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 197-200; Burkitt, Hvangelion da- 
Mepharreshe, ii. p. 262; Nestle, Zextual Criticism of the N.T. pp. 248, 
249; Kenyon, Zextual Criticism of the N.T. pp. 112, 115, 131, 1323 
Zahn, Zinlettung, ii. pp. 292, 293. 


I. 18-25. Zhe Messiah’s Supernatural Birth. 


It is evident that the Virgin-birth did not belong to the main 
stream of Apostolic tradition. The two narratives of it come 
from private sources, Matthew’s from Joseph, Luke’s from Mary. 
Here we have the husband’s impressions, his dismay and 
perplexity, his humane decision, and his submission to the Divine 
revelation. There we have the mother’s impressions, her trouble 
and amazement, and her submission to the Divine decree. The 
two ‘narratives are wholly independent, as their great differences 
show. ‘These differences do not amount to contradictions, 
though we do not know how to harmonize them; and they 


4 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [I. 18-25 


are confined to details! They confirm the general trustworthi- 
ness of each narrative, for neither can have been based on the 
other. The two accounts agree, not only as to the main fact of 
the Virgin-birth, but also as to the manner of it,—that it took 
place through the agency of the Holy Spirit. And this agree- 
ment cannot be due to the influence of the Old Testament upon 
both writers. There is no such operation of the Holy Spirit on 
a virgin in the Old Testament, in which the very expression 
‘Holy Spirit’ is rare. And elsewhere in the New Testament the 
Incarnation is indicated in a totally different way (Jn. i. 14). 
And the two narratives agree with regard to four other points, 
besides the two central facts just mentioned. They both say 
that, at the time when the Divine will was made known to Mary 
and to Joseph, the two were espoused to one another, that the 
Child was to be called ‘Jesus,’ that He was born at Bethlehem 
in Judeea, and that the parents brought Him up at Nazareth. 
The account in Matthew is further confirmed by its accuracy 
with regard to Jewish feeling and Law. Joseph’s attitude is 
indicated with great naturalness and delicacy, and the necessity 
for divorce, although the marriage had not yet taken place, is 
clearly shown. With the Jews, espousal was much more serious 
than an ‘engagement’ is with us, and could be severed only by 


divorce.? 


The delicacy and sobriety of both narratives are further signs 
of historic reality. It is true that more or less analogous stories 
are to be found both in pagan and in Jewish literature. But 
Gentile readers would feel the unspeakable difference between 
Luke’s narrative and the impure legends about intercourse between 
mortals and deities in heathen mythology; and Jewish readers, 
if they compared this chapter with the coarse imaginations of 
their own people in the Book of Enoch (vi, xv., Ixix., Ixxxvi., cvi.), 
would feel a similar contrast. And Christian legends exhibit the 
like instructive contrast. ‘The Apocryphal Gospels, when they 
make additions to the Canonical Gospels, show that, even with 
these to copy from, the early Christians could produce nothing 
similar. Their inventions are distressing in their unseemll- 
ness. If the two Evangelists had sought material in legends 
of pagan or Jewish or Christian origin, we should have had 
something very different from the narratives which have been 
the joy and the inspiration of Christendom through countless 
generations. 


1 <* Between these two accounts of Mt. and Lk. no contradiction exists” 
(O. Holtzmann, Zzfe of Jesus, p. 85). As to the witness of 5. Mark, see 
Vincent M‘Nabb, Journal of Theological Studies, April 1907, p. 448. 

2 Apparently Joseph had made up his mind that divorce was the only 
thing possible; ἐβουλήθη ἀπολῦσαι, not ἐβούλετο: ἐνθυμηθέντος, not 
ἐνθυμουμένου (19, 20). 


I. 18-25] THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 5 


And each Evangelist gives his account of the marvel as 
historical. He believes it himself, and is confident that it will 
carry conviction. And it is not easy to see how either narrative 
could have originated without an historical foundation. Nothing 
in early Christian literature warrants us in believing that a writer 
of the first or second century could have imagined such things 
and described them thus. As the other two Gospels show, the 
story of the Virgin-birth is not required to explain the history of 
the Ministry, Passion, and Resurrection.!_ This history, although 
it is greatly illuminated when the Virgin-birth is added, is quite 
intelligible without it, and probably many of the first Christians 
passed away without ever receiving this illuminating addition to 
their faith. Moreover, both narratives are intensely Jewish in tone ; 
and it is not likely that Judaism, with its very high estimate of 
the blessings of marriage, would have invented either of them. 

Of the two accounts, that by S. Luke is probably nearer to 
the original source. There is nothing improbable in the hypo- 
thesis that he received it, possibly in writing, from Mary herself. 
She perhaps kept it to herself (Lk. ii. 52) till late in life ; and, if 
there was any one between her and the Evangelist, it is not likely 
that the narrative passed through many hands before it reached 
him. With Joseph’s account of the matter it may have been 
otherwise. He seems to have died long before his wife, and 
what he had to tell may have passed through many hands before 
it was written down as we have it here. One may conjecture 
that James, the Lord’s brother, was one of those who handed it 
on to the Evangelist. 

It kas been urged that the double revelation indicates fiction ; 
if a Divine announcement had been really made to either Mary 
or Joseph, a repetition of it to the other would have been need- 
less. ‘Tis is not sound criticism. The annunciation to Mary 
was necessary, in order to save her from cruel perplexity as to 
her subsequent condition. An annunciation to Joseph was 
equally necessary: he could not have believed so amazing a 
story, if he had had only Mary’s word for it. 

Again, it has been urged that both narratives are to be 
distrusted, because here Joseph receives the Divine announce- 
ments in dreams, while in Lk. Mary receives them in her 
waking moments. Certainly it is possible that the supernatural | 
agency is in each case due to the imagination of the writer: he 
knew that a revelation was made, and he conjectured the way in 
which the Divine message was communicated. But it is also | 


1 Both 5. Mark and S. John confirm the Virgin-birth, though they do 
not mention it. Mark calls Jesus the ‘Son of Mary’ (vi. 3) and the ‘Son of 
God’ (i. 1), but he nowhere calls Him the Son of Joseph. John sometimes 
corrects the earlier Gospels, but he does not correct the Virgin-birth (i. 14). 


6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [1. 18-25 


possible that the mode of communication was in each case 
suited to the character of the person who received it. Mt. 
does not always give us dreams or object to Angels (iv. 11, 
XXVill. 5-7); nor does 5. Luke do the opposite (Acts xvi. 9, 
XVill. 9, 10). Theimportant question is, whether God did com- 
municate this gracious mystery, first to Mary and then to 
Joseph. The precise mode of communication is of litttle 
importance. And it is worth noting that, when heathens are 
warned in dreams, no Angel appears to them (ii. 12, xxvii. 19). 
Very possibly the information about all six dreams, the five in 
these two chapters and that of Pilate’s wife, comes from the same 
source, 

In marked contrast to the similar promises to Abraham and 
to Zacharias (Gen. xvii. 19, 21; Lk. i. 13), the Angel here (21) 
does not say ‘shall bear ¢Zee a son’: there is no σοι after τέξεται, 
although ‘to thee’ in ver. 21 and ‘to him’ in ver. 25 are found 
in Syriac Versions (Burkitt, Zvangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. pp. 
199, 200). Both Syr-Sin. and Syr-Cur. have ‘ to thee’ in ver. 21, 
and Syr-Sin. has ‘to him’ in ver. 25. But even if the σοι were 
in the Greek Text, in which it probably never had a place 
(p. 262), it would not be of doctrinal importance, for the meaning 
of the Evangelist is clear. ‘‘ The points which Mt. wishes to 
impress on his readers are the physical reality of the birth of 
Christ from a virgin and the /ega/ity of the descent from David. 
The physical reality of the descent from David was a matter of 
no moment so long as the legal conditions were satisfied.” The 
σοι, if Mt. had written it, would simply have meant, She 
shall bear thee a “legitimate Heir of the Divine promises made 
to David” (p. 260). That is the meaning of ἐγέννησεν in the 
genealogy: e.g. ‘Joram begat Uzziah’ means that Uzziah was 
the legitimate heir of Joram, not that he was actually Joram’s 
son. The insertion of the names of Tamar, Rahab, Ruth, 
and the wife of Uriah indicates that the heir had sometimes 
been born irregularly, “‘as if to prepare us for greater irregu- 
larity at the last stage,” and perhaps also to prepare us for the 
welcome which the Messiah will give to aliens and sinners: see 
above. 

It would be rash to say that, without the Virgin-birth, the 
Incarnation and Redemption would have been impossible. It 
is enough for us that, with it, both are more intelligible. In so 
mysterious a subject, dogmatism is out of place, and speculation 
is more likely to become irreverent than profitable. But the 
question has been much discussed, and this much may be 
suggested. If Christ had had no human parent, He would not 
have taken our flesh, and would not have been of the same race 
as those whom He came to save. It is not easy to see ΠΟΥ͂ ἃ 


1. 18-25] THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 7 


newly created being could have helped the human race by death 
and resurrection. If Christ had had two human parents, it is 
not easy to see how the hereditary contamination of the race 
could have been excluded. It might be urged that this difficulty 
remains even with only one human parent ; we must either admit 
the hereditary taint, or allow no connexion with the human race. 
But there is no such alternative. There are three possibilities : 
human parentage, a fresh creation, and the substitution of Divine 
operation for the human father. In the last case, the Divine 
element would exclude all possibility of taint from the human 
mother, for it is inconceivable that the Divine element should 
receive pollution. But it is safer to accept with reverent thank- 
fulness what has been told us in the Gospels than to raise need- 
less, and perhaps fruitless, questions about what has not been 
told.} 

The Messiah was born 7” the flesh, not of the flesh. He was 
born in the flesh; and therefore was able to vanquish sin and 
death in the region in which they had won their victories. He 
was not born of the flesh, but of the Spirit; and therefore He 
did not share in the innate proneness towards evil which all other 
human beings exhibit. It was possible for Him to pass the 
whole of His life without sin. In human society, it is man who. 
represents individual initiative, while woman represents the con- 
tinuity of the species. ‘The Messiah was not the child of this or 
that father, but of the race. He was not a son of any individual, 
but He was ‘the Son of Man.’ 

It was possible for Him to be sinless, and He was sinless. 
Yet it cannot be argued that the Virgin-birth was imagined in 
order to account for His sinlessness, for nowhere in the N.T. is 
the one given as the explanation of the other. But all the 
evidence that we have goes to show that no one ever convicted 
Him ofsin. Some charged Him with it, but they never brought 
it home to His conscience so that He Himself was aware of it. 
He called upon others to repent; He said that they were by 
nature (ὑπάρχοντες) evil (Lk. xi. 13), that they must be born 
anew, that He came to save sinners and had authority to forgive 
sins, that He would give His own life as a ransom for sinners, 
and, beyond all this, He said that He would hereafter appear as 
the Judge of al]. It is not credible that one who could thus 
speak of Himself and of others, should Himself have been 
conscious of sin. That would involve a psychological contradic- 
tion. All experience teaches that, the holier men become, the 


1See Hastings’ DCG., artt. ‘Annunciation,’ ‘ Birth of Christ,’ ‘ Virgin 
Birth,’ and the literature there quoted. 

On the different readings of i. 18 see Nestle, 7extual Criticism of the 
Gk. Test. p. 249; Scrivener (Miller), ii. pp. 321, 322. 


8 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [1. 18-25 


more convinced they are of their own sinfulness.t This would 
have been the case with Jesus, if He had been only the holiest 
man that ever lived: and, had He been constantly advancing in 
consciousness of His own frailty and faultiness, some evidence 
of this would have found its way into the Gospels. ‘The Gospels 
are not in every matter of detail historically exact ; but what they 
give us, with overwhelming truthfulness of testimony, is the moral 
impression which Jesus of Nazareth produced upon those who 
knew Him or were influenced by those who knew Him; and 
that was, that He was one ‘who did no sin, neither was guile 
found in His mouth’ (1 Pet. il. 22; 2 Cor. v. 21). 

The quotation of Is. vil. 14 (23) is given according to the 
Septuagint, with the necessary change from ‘thou shalt call’ to 
‘they shall call.’ The original text, so familiar from its Christmas 
associations, “is in some ways one of the most difficult verses 
in the whole Bible” (W. E. Barnes, ad /oc.). The Hebrew for 
‘virgin’ is a/mah, one who is not yet a wife, not dethulah, one 
from whom all idea of marriage is excluded. The promised 
sign is in the name to be given to the child, not in the strange- 
ness of its birth. The prophecy, as ver. 16 shows, is connected 
with the Prophet’s own time, and it promises deliverance within 
a short period. But “there are signs that the view that Isaiah 
was using current mythological terms, and intended the sense 
of supernatural birth, is rightly gaining ground. In any case the 
LXX translators already interpreted the passage in this sense; 
and the fact that the later Greek translators substituted νεᾶνις for 
παρθένος, and that there are no traces of the supernatural birth 
in the later Jewish literature, is due to anti-Christian polemic” 
(Allen, ad /oc.). Justin Martyr (Z7y. 43 and 67) calls attention 
to this change from παρθένος to νεᾶνις. Nevertheless, it may be 
true that anti-Christian polemic, by suggesting that Mary was an 
unfaithful spouse, really points to the Virgin-birth. See Herford, 
Christianity in Talmud and Midrash, pp. 35 ff. See also Briggs, 
“Criticism and Dogma of the Virgin-birth,” in 4V. Amer. Rev., 
June 1906. 

In vv. 22, 23 we have the Evangelist’s own reflexion on the 
Angelic message to Joseph: it was the fulfilment, in its contents, 
of aremarkable Messianic prophecy. But Mt. seems to give this 
reflexion as if it was part of what the Angel said in the dream. 
Irenzeus (Iv. xxiii. 1) expressly takes it so, and Zahn (ad loc, 
Ρ. 77) contends that he is right. In xxvi. 56 there is similar 
doubt whether a similar reflexion is given as part of Christ’s 


1 This has been pointed out, in connexion with the sinlessness of Jesus, 
not only by Godet (Zntroduction au N.T. p. 277), but by Strauss (Leden 
Jesu, Pp» 195). See also DCG., art. ‘Immanuel’; Moulton, A/odern 
Reader's Bible, p. 1568. 


I. 18-25] THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 9 


utterance or as the Evangelist’s own. Possibly in both cases 
Mt. was so convinced of the correctness of the view as to the 
fulfilment of prophecy that he did not hesitate to give it the 
highest sanction.! In the one case the Angel, in the other the 
Messiah, must have known of the fulfilment of prophecy. In 
much the same way Mt. gives his own interpretation of Jonah 
as a sign to the Ninevites as if it were part of what our Lord 
said to the Pharisees (xii. 40). Here the AV. places vz. 22, 
23 in brackets, as a parenthetical remark, which 15 their 
true character; but the RV. omits the brackets, because the 
Evangelist does not seem to make any parenthesis. He 
remains in the background, while the Angel makes the re- 
flexion. 

In ‘he knew her not’ (οὐκ ἐγίνωσκεν αὐτήν), the imperfect tense ' 
is important. It is against the tradition of the perpetual virginity 
of Mary. This has been questioned ; but it hardly needs argu-/ 
ment that, in such a context, ‘he used not to’ or ‘he was not in 
the habit of’? means more than ‘he did not.’ It is quite true 
that the aorist, ‘he knew her not until,’ would have implied that 
she subsequently had children by him. But the imperfect implies 
this still more strongly. “The meaning of ver. 25 seems clear 
if only we could approach the subject without prepossessions ” 
(Wright, Syvofsis, p. 259). As Zahn points out, Mt. wrote in 
Palestine for Jews and Jewish Christians, and he would know 
whether ‘the brethren’ of the Lord were the sons of Mary or 
not. Seeing how anxious he is to glorify the Messiah, and how 
jealously he avoids whatever might seem to detract from His 
glory, it cannot have been a matter of indifference to him whether 
the Messiah was Mary’s only child or not. If he knew that she 
had no other child, he would have made this clear with eager 
reverence. Instead of making it clear that the Messiah was the 
only being who could call her His Mother, he uses an expression 
which inevitably suggests and naturally implies that she had 
children by Joseph. It is as if he knew that ‘the brethren’ 
were her children, and yet could not bring himself in so many 
words to say so. That he would have welcomed the theory that 
they were Joseph’s children by a former wife is by no means 
certain, for in that case it could hardly be maintained that Jesus 
was the heir of David through Joseph. But Mt. would perhaps 
have regarded the wonderful circumstances of His Birth and the 
fulfilment of prophecies as sufficient evidence that He was 
appointed by God to be the Heir. Mt., however, gives no 


1 In both cases, as also in xxi. 4, where it is certainly Mt. who makes 
the reflexion, the perfect in τοῦτο δὲ [ὅλον] γέγονεν may mean that the 
narrator is near to the event (Lightfoot, On a /resh Revision, p. 100); or 
it may mean that the result remains as an abiding fact. 


10 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [1. 18-25 


indication that he knew of any former wife. The one fact 
about which he leaves us in no doubt is that Mary was a virgin 
when she gave birth to the Messiah. Hence this Gospel begins 
with an emphatic contradiction of a well-known Jewish calumny, 
and ends with an equally emphatic contradiction of another. 
The Jews said that Jesus of Nazareth was the son of some man 
who had seduced Mary. ‘They also said that His disciples had 
stolen His Body from the tomb in order to pretend that He had 
risen from the dead. Thus this ‘Gospel of the kingdom,’ written 
by a Jewish Christian for Jews and Jewish Christians, begins by 
repelling a Jewish attack on the Virgin-birth, and ends by re- 
pelling a Jewish attack on the Resurrection. See J. B. Mayor, 
Lp. of S. James, pp. v—-xxxvi; Smith’s DB., 2nd ed., artt. 
‘ Brother,’ ‘ James,’ ‘ Judas, the Lord’s Brother’; Hastings’ DA. 
and DCG., artt. ‘Brethren of the Lord,’ ‘Mary the Virgin’; 
J. B. Mayor, Lxfositor, July and August 1908. 

In dealing with his fellow-countrymen, whom he wished to 
bring over to allegiance to the Messiah, the writer of the First 
Gospel points out that in ¢Zvee conspicuous instances those who 
were nearest to the Messiah, after having at first found an 
occasion of falling in Him, became convinced that in Him and 
in His word the Divine Wisdom was justified (xi. 19). At His 
Birth, in the middle of His Ministry, and at His Death, precisely 
those who had the best means of judging about the matter were 
first of all offended, and then were divinely helped to a better 
appreciation of His character as the promised Messiah and 
Saviour. At the outset, even before He was born, Joseph, the 
son of David, doubted whether she who was the Mother of the 
Messiah was not a faithless spouse (i. 19). When the Messiah’s 
work had so increased that He appointed twelve of His best 
disciples to assist Him in it, John, the greatest of the Prophets, 
sent to Him to ask whether one who was so slow to assert 
Himself was to be regarded as the promised Messiah (xi. 2, 3). 
When the Messiah’s work was closed, and to human eyes seemed 
to be a failure, and He was already under sentence of death, the 
first of the Apostles, one of the chosen Three, publicly declared 
and swore that he did not know the Man (xxvi. 70-75). It was 
not to be wondered at, if other Jews, who had never seen Jesus 
of Nazareth, should have misgivings about Him; but, with these 
three examples before them, they might take courage and accept 
Him as their Messiah. 

The date of Christ’s birth cannot be determined with certainty. 
Sir William Ramsay has argued in favour of B.c. 6. Colonel 
Mackinlay has shown that B.c. ὃ is more probable (716 Afagi, 
how they recognised Christ's Star, pp. 135 ff.); and this Ramsay 
admits. He says: “Though the evidence is still inconclusive, 


11. 1-120) THE MESSIAII’S BIRTIL AND INFANCY It 


it seems more probable that his date 8 n.c. is right. It is clearly 
demonstrated that there was a system of periodic enrolment in 
the Province of Syria according to a fourteen-years cycle, and the 
first enrolment was made in the year 8-7 B.c. (Christ Born in 
Bethlehem, p. 170). Such was the rule, but in carrying out of 
such an extensive and novel operation in the Roman world 
delays sometimes occurred ; and an example of such delay for 
about two years (as revealed by a recent discovery) is quoted in 
my article ‘Corroboration’ in the Zxfosttor, Nov. 1901, pp. 
321f. Accordingly I concluded that the enrolment in Herod's 
kingdom was probably delayed until autumn 6 B.c. While such 
delay is possible, it has against it the distinct testimony of 
Tertullian that the enrolment in Syria at which Christ was born 
was made by Saturninus, who governed the Province 9-7 B.C. 
The evidence which determined me to favour the date 6 B.c. is 
distinctly slighter in character than that which supports the date 
8 B.c.” (Preface to Mackinlay’s Zhe Magt, how they recognised 
Christs Star, pp. ix, x). As to the time of year, Mackinlay 
gives reasons for preferring the Feast of Tabernacles, and 
probably the first day of it, to any other season (p. 176). If this 
is correct, then, although 25th December must be quite wrong 
for the day of the Nativity, yet 28th December may be fairly exact 
for the murders at Bethlehem, which took place about three 
months after the Nativity (p. 199). 

When we consider how very little of ch. i. affords any scope 
for the writer to give any evidence of characteristics or peculli- 
arities of style, the number of expressions which are found 
broadcast over the rest of the Gospel is large. Even in the first 
seventeen verses, which are occupied with the pedigree of the 
Messiah, there are two or three characteristic expressions: 
vids Δανείδ (1), λεγόμενος (16), and rod Χριστοῦ (17), which 
anticipates xi. 2. In the narrative portion we have ἰδού (20), 
φαίνεσθαι (20), vids Δαυείδ (20), iva πληρωθῇ (22). The following 
are peculiar to Mt.: κατ᾽ ὄναρ (20), ῥηθέν (22); peculiar to this 
chapter: μετρικεσία (11, 12, 17). 


It. 1-12. Zhe Visit of the Magi to the Newborn Messiah. 


There can be no doubt that the Evangelist regards this 
narrative, like that of the Virgin-birth, as historical. He has it 
on what he believes to be good authority, and he would have his 
readers accept it as completely as he does himself. And there is 
no sufficient reason why they should refuse to do so; for the 
story is not in any way incredible in itself, and it is difficult to 
find any satisfactory explanation of its origin, excepting that in 


12 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [11. 1-12 


the main it is (τπ6.1 The attempts to explain it by legendary 
analogies are very unsuccessful. The examples cited are more 
remarkable for their differences than for their resemblances ; 
and, even if the resemblances were great, it would be a monstrous 
principle to lay down, that what resembles fiction must itself be 
fiction. ‘The only element in the story which resembles legend 
is the statement that the star ‘went before them, till it came 
and stood over where the young child was,’ a statement of 
“oreat poetical beauty,” which may be intended to mean no 
more than that what they had seen in the heavens Zed to their 
finding the newborn Messiah. But the mode of statement may 
be due, not to a poetic vein in the Evangelist, who does not 
elsewhere seem to have any such vein, but to his informants, or 
to the Magi themselves. The expression may be Oriental 
rhetoric, or it may state what appeared to them to be the case. 
Even if we pronounce this detail to be deliberate embellishment, 
that does not show that the whole story is a fiction.? 

There is abundant evidence of a wide-spread desire and 
expectation of a coming Deliverer or universal King some time 
before the Birth of Christ. Eastern astrologers would search the 
heavens for signs of this great event. Whether it was planetary 
conjunctions which are known to have taken place in B.c. 7-4, 
or transitory phenomena which cannot now be calculated, that 
attracted the attention of the Magi, cannot be determined. The 
character of the phenomena, or a knowledge of Jewish anticipa- 
tions, may have directed them to Palestine. The remainder of 
the narrative needs no explanation; but, if we like to omit the 
Magi’s dream, and substitute for it a feeling of distrust for Herod, 
we shall have an account which reads like sober history, wholly 
in harmony with the known circumstances of the time and with 
the cruel character of Herod. The Old Testament is not the 
source of the star or of the gifts; for the Evangelist, in spite of 
his great fondness for fulfilments of prophecy, does not quote 


1 The objection mee to it by Celsus, that Magi have been confused with 
Chaldeans, is very weak (Orig. Coz. Cels. i. 58), and does not seem to have 
been taken up by Jewish opponents of Christianity. 

2 Tt is not often that we find anything of real poetical beauty in the 
apocryphal additions to the Gospels; but, as to the star, we are told that it 
fell into the well at Bethlehem, and there sometimes it is still seen by those 
who are pure in heart (Donehoo, Afocryphal and Legendary Life of Christ, 

» 73) 74): 

rs Bethlehem is specified as ‘of Judea,’ not to distinguish it from Bethle- 
hem of Galilee (Josh. xix. 15), but, either in accordance with O.T. usage, 
or (more probably) to indicate that the King of the Jews was born in the 
territory of the tribe of Judah. Jerome says that ‘in the actual Hebrew’ 
({γ1 zpso Hebratco), by which he probably means the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews, the reading was ‘ of Judah,’ not ‘of Judea,’ which he regards as a 
mistake of the copyists. 


1. 1-12] THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 13 


either Num. xxiv. 17 for the one, or Ps. Ixxii. 10, 15, Cant. iii. 6, 
Is. Ix. 6 for the other. The gifts mentioned are intrinsically 
probable, independently of any prophecy or previous narrative. 
We may believe that the Evangelist knew that the Star in 
Balaam’s prophecy indicated the Messiah Himself, as even the 
Targums interpreted it. It was Christians who, under the influ- 
ence of this narrative, misinterpreted Balaam’s Star as meaning 
the star which guided the Magi; and it was Christians who, 
under the influence of Ps. lxxii., turned the Magi into kings. 

The expression ‘ King of the Jews’ (2) shows that the Magi 
were heathen. ‘In the east’ (ἐν τῇ ἀνατολῇ) should probably be 
‘at its rising’: the appearance in the heavens, not in a particular 
quarter of the heavens, suggested the birth of a king.t’ The 
Evangelist purposely speaks of Herod as ‘Herod the king’ to 
explain why he was troubled: his throne was in danger. ‘All 
Jerusalem’ (πᾶσα ᾿Ιεροσόλυμα : the feminine singular is unusual) 
is common hyperbole: it was to their interest not to have a 
disputed dynasty. ‘The expression ‘chief priests and scribes of 
the people’ indicates representatives of the Sanhedrin. Comp. 
xxi. 23 and xxvi. 3, where we have ‘elders of the people. In 
xvi. 21 all three of the component elements are mentioned. 

Here begins, by implication, the Evangelist’s attitude of 
condemnation towards the official instructors of the Jewish 
nation. A message is brought, under highly exceptional and 
remarkable conditions, that the King of the Jews has been born ; 
and these national leaders take no kind of pains to find out 
whether or no it is true; they hope that it is not, for they do not 
want to have to decide between rival claims. The only person 
who takes any trouble in the matter is Herod, and his aim 
respecting the newborn King of the Jews is to compass His 
destruction. Pagans, who had nothing to guide them but 
smatterings of science mingled with much superstition, neverthe- 
less are so kindled with enthusiasm by the signs which God, by 
means of these imperfect instruments, had granted to them, that 
they take a long journey and make careful investigations, in 


1 * We saw’ (RV.) is better than ‘ We have seen’ (AV.); J. H. Moulton, 
Grammar of N.T. Greek, i. p. 138. 

In the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs there are many points of 
contact with the N.T., especially with Mt. In the Messianic hymn near the 
end of the Test. of Levi we have this prediction: ‘* Then shall the Lord 
raise up a new priest; To him all the words of the Lord shall be revealed ; 
And he shall do judgment of truth on the earth. And his star shall arise in 
heaven as of a king, lighting up the light of knowledge as the sun in the 
daytime ” (Levi xviii. 2, 3). See below on ili. 17, 

For the “‘ vernacular genitive” in εἴδομεν γὰρ αὑτοῦ τὸν ἀστέρα see Abbott, 
Johannine Grammar, 2782 ; the effect is to emphasize ‘seen’ and ‘star,’ esp. 
the latter. For the use of προσκυνεῖν in the N.T. see Johannine Vocabulary, 


1643. 


14 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [τε 1-12 


order to pay due reverence to the new Ruler who has been sent 
into the world. But the Jewish hierarchy, with the Pentateuch 
and Prophets in their hands, are so far from being elated at this 
report of the fulfilment of types and prophecies, that they do not 
care so much as to verify it. ‘They are content to be ruled by 
the Herods rather than be roused out of their accustomed modes 
of life. 


The cause of the varying translations of the term ἀρχιερεύς in Latin texts 
is a problem which has yet to be solved: we have premceps sacerdotum, 
summus sacerdos, pontifex, princeps, sacerdos, the last being rare for ἀρχιερεύς, 
but the regular translation everywhere of ἱερεύς. In Mt. prenceps sacerdotum 
prevails, and in Lk. also, in Mk. swmmus sacerdos; in Jn. pontifex, with 
princeps sacerdotum frequent in Old Latin texts. JAlulta pati a sacerdolibus 
(Mt. xvi. 21) is found in Irenzeus (III. xviii. 4); and /udas sacerdotibus et 
sentoribus dixtt (Mt. xxvii. 3) is found in Cyprian (752. 11. 14). See 
Burkitt, Jour. of Th. St. for Jan. 1908, pp. 290 ff. 

Field gives an interesting parallel to ii. 4 from Dionysius Hal. Azt. Rom. 
iv. 59: συγκαλέσας δὲ (Tarquinius) τοὺς ἐπιχωρίους μάντεις, ἐπυνθάνετο παρ᾽ 
αὐτῶν, τί βούλεται σημαίνειν τὸ τέρας, (Otiwm Norvic. 111. p. 1). In both 
cases the imperfect is effective: ‘he kept on asking,’ ‘he repeatedly asked.’ 

On the hypothesis that the Magi connected the appearance of a new star 
(like that which appeared in Perseus in Feb. 1901) with the fravashz or 
representative spirit of a new king, see J. H. Moulton in the Jour. of Th. St., 
July 1902, p. 524. They may have heard of Jewish hopes of a Messiah, 


The quotation from Mic. v. 2 which is put into the mouths 
of the hierarchy varies greatly from the Septuagint and looks like 
a free translation from the Hebrew. It is remarkable that Mt. 
does not quote any prophecy as pointing to the visit of the Magi. 
We might have expected to have Is. xlix. 12 or lx. 3 cited as an 
anticipation of this reverence paid by those who ‘came from far,’ 
and of this early instance of ‘nations coming to the light’ of the 
Messiah. But at any rate we have in this visit of the Magi, 
to do homage to one whom the rulers of the Jews despise and 
persecute, an early instance of that truth which is again and 
again alluded to through this Gospel, that the Jews, who trusted 
in their descent from Abraham and rejected the revelation which 
God made through His Son, are expelled from their inheritance, 
while the Gentiles, who welcome that revelation, are admitted 
into the Kingdom (ili. 9, vill. 11, 12, xl. 18-21, xv. 28, xxi. 43, 
XXiL 5-10, XXIV. 14, XKVili. 19). 

The fact that the Magi found Mary and the Child in ‘the 
house’ tells us nothing as to the place of birth. Mt. may have 
believed that the Messiah was born in a house rather than in a 

1 The fact that Mt. does not cite either these prophecies, or Num. xxiv. 
17, or Deut. xviii. 15, is strong evidence that he has not himself invented 
the story as a fulfilment of O.T. predictions. Comp. also 2 Sam. v. 2. On 
what is here quoted from Micah, Swete remarks ‘‘The Evangelist has put 
into the mouth of the Scribes an interpretation rather than a version of the 
prophecy ” (Zr. ¢o the Ο, 7. in Greek, p. 390). 


f1.1-12] THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 15 


stable or a cave, but all that he cares to emphasize is that He 
was born at Bethlehem, not at Nazareth. Again, he may have 
believed that the star moved at first and then stood still over 
Bethlehem ; but all that is required for his narrative is that the 
Magi, as they journeyed from their home to Jerusalem and 
Bethlehem, had the star in front οἵ. ἤθη. The gifts which they 
bring tell us nothing respecting the home of the Magi! They 
were offerings such as were often made to princes, and they 
could be obtained everywhere. The mystical interpretation of 
them, as pointing to royalty, divinity, and mortality, is as old 
as Origen. Gold and frankincense occur together in Is. Ix. 6. 
The three gifts led to the legend of three kings, each offering 
one. : 

There is not one word in the narrative to indicate that the 
Magi did wrong in drawing inferences from what they saw in 
the heavens, or that their knowledge of the birth of the Messiah 
was obtained from evil spirits or by the practice of any black 
art. Yet Christian writers, while insisting that magic was over- 
thrown by the Advent of Christ, often connect this overthrow 
with the visit of the Magi, whose adoration of the Holy Child 
is taken as an admission of their defeat (Ign. ZA. 19; Just. 
M. Zrypho, 78; Orig. Con. Cels. i. 60; Tert. De Idol. 9, etc.). 
Augustine’s epigram is attractive, but it is not in harmony with 
the facts: Quid erit tribunal judicantis, cum superbos reges cune 
terrebant infantis? ‘The Magi were not proud kings, and it was 
not terror which moved them to come. 


Attention may here be called to two words which are of very frequent 
occurrence in Mt., one of which occurs in this section for the first time. 
*Then’ (τότε) is a favourite way of beginning a narrative: ii. 7, 16, 17, 
iii. 5, 13, 15, iv. 1, 5, 10, τὰς vill. 26, ix. 6, 14, 29, 37, Xi. 20, xii. 13, 22, 

» 44, 45, etc. εἰς. Somewhat similar in use is ‘Lo’ or ‘ Behold’ (ἐδού) : 
1. 20, ii. I, 13, 19, ix. 18, 32, x. 16, xi. 8, etc. ; and καὶ ἰδού, ii. 9, iii. 16, 
17, iv. 11, Vil. 4, Vill. 2, 24, 29, 32, 34, ix. 2, 3, 10, etc. Comp. also σφόδρα, 
which occurs once each in Mk., Lk., Acts, and Rev., but in Mt. seven times : 
ii. 10, xvii. 6, 23, xviii. 31, xix. 25, Xxvi. 22, xxvii. 54; and note the re- 
currence of προσκυνεῖν, a very favourite word with Mt., but rare in Mk. and 
Lk. : ii. 2, 8, 11, iv. 9, viil. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, xv. 25, xviii. 26, xx. 20, 
xxviii. 9,17. We might add πορεύεσθαι to these, as a word which is very 
frequent in Mt. and occurs first in this paragraph : ii. 8, 9, 20, viii. 9, ix. 13, 
᾿ς, 7, xi. 4, 7, xii. I, 45, xvii. 27, xviii, 12, xix. 15, etc. ; but it is very 
frequent in Lk. also, and in Acts. See small print at the end of this 


ee 
th ἰδού and καὶ ἰδού are frequently used to introduce some wonderful 
thing, as in these two chapters; but this is not always the case, as the above 


references show. Nevertheless, Bengel’s farticula signo exhibendo aptissima 
holds good. 


1 Arabia is an carly guess (Justin, Tertullian), but it is not a good one; 
for Arabia is south rather than east of Judwa. The Queen of Shelw is ‘Queen 
of the South’ (xii. 42). 


16 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [II. 18-28 


II. 13-23. Zhe Hight into Egypt, the Massacre of the 
Innocents, and the Return to Palestine. 


Here again we may, if we like, regard the dreams as the 
Evangelist’s own interpretation of what took place. He knew 
that all that was done came to pass under Divine guidance ; and 
this guidance could be most easily understood as operating 
through dreams. The Divine ordering of the events is all that 
is essential; the manner in which God’s will took effect is of 
small moment. ‘The Magi would tell Joseph and Mary of the 
excitement which had been produced in Jerusalem by their 
visit, and Joseph would naturally think it prudent to withdraw 
the Child from Palestine. ‘They could not tell of Herod’s evil 
designs, for they did not know them; but Joseph would know 
enough of Herod’s character to surmise that his great interest 
in the birth of a King of the Jews boded no good. He had 
recently (B.c. 7) put his own sons by Mariamne, Alexander and 
Aristobulus, to death, believing that they were a danger to his 
throne ; which made Augustus (under whose eye they had been 
educated at Rome) remark, that it was better to be Herod’s pig 
than his son. If Joseph decided that they must leave the 
dominions of such a ruler, Egypt was an obvious place of refuge. 
It was close at hand, and there were many Jews there. The 
return to Palestine would be equally natural after Herod was 
dead. 

This paragraph (13-18) is in emphatic contrast to the pre- 
ceding one, and the contrast is at once marked by the Angel’s 
warning in the opening verse: ‘For Herod is about to seek 
the young Child to destroy Him’ is in simple but emphatic 
antithesis to the Magi, who sought Him out ‘to worship Him.’ 
Other instances of dramatic juxtaposition of incidents will be 
found in this Gospel, especially in the concluding chapters. 
There may be some reference to this in Rev. xu. 1-6. 

Just as in the preceding case the Evangelist’s chief point is 
that the Messiah was born at Bethlehem and was found there 
by the Magi, while he tells nothing about their home or the 
details of their journey, so here his main point is that the Messiah 
took refuge in Egypt. About the route by which He was taken 
or brought back, or the length of time that He remained in 
Egypt, nothing is said. He had two reasons for insisting upon 
the flight into Egypt, one of which is conspicuous in his 
narrative, the other not. He wished to show that here again 
we have a fulfilment of prophecy, and also to show that the 
King of the Jews, like the Jewish nation itself, left Palestine 
and took refuge in Egypt, and then returned to Palestine again. 
It is possible also that Mt. had the story of the flight of Moses 


δ νὰ 


II. 18-28] THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 17 


Jrom Egypt, and his return to it, in his mind; comp. Ex. 
iv. 19. 

With regard to the prophecy in ver. 15, Mt. does not, any 
more than in ver. 6, quote the Septuagint, which would not have 
suited his purpose in either case: he gives an independent 
translation of the Hebrew, which he may or may not have made 
for himself.!. In Hos. xi. 1 the Septuagint gives, ‘Out of Egypt 
I called his children’ (ἐξ Αἰγύπτου μετεκάλεσα τὰ τέκνα αὐτοῦ). 
In any case, however, the verse is not a prophecy, but the 
statement of an historical fact,—the call of Israel out of Egypt 
into the land of Canaan, to make known there the true religion. 
But the history of the nation is often regarded as a typical 
anticipation of the life of the Messiah. 

We know neither how old the Child was when He was taken 
into Egypt nor how long He remained there. , Herod died B.c. 4, 
five days after he had put his son Antipater to death, and a little 
before the Passover. The flight into Egypt probably took place 
two or three years before that; the stay in Egypt must have 
lasted some years. 

There was a Jewish tradition respecting the stay in Egypt, 
which, although false, is of great value. Origen gives it as 
having been brought forward by Celsus, who asserted that Jesus, 
“having been brought up as an illegitimate child, and having 
served for hire in Egypt, and then coming to the knowledge 

of certain miraculous powers, returned thence to His own 
country, and by means of those powers proclaimed Himself a 
God” (Con. Cels. i. 38). Another form of the tradition is 
that Jesus wrought miracles by means of charms, which He 
brought, concealed in His flesh, from Egypt. This tradition 
confirms two things, that Jesus went into Egypt, and that He 
afterwards wrought mighty works. The Jews regarded Egypt 
as the home of magical arts. The Talmud says: “Ten 
measures of sorcery descended into the world; Egypt received 
nine, the rest of the world one” (Herford, Christianity in Talmud 
and Midrash, p. 55). It is possible that this Jewish tradition 
that Jesus learnt magic in Egypt, or brought charms out of 


1 Only in a few cases are the quotations in Mt. taken from the LXX. 
“The greater number are based on the Hebrew, some of these exhibiting 
Curious inaccuracies arising out of a misconception of the Hebrew text.” And 

haps Mt. used a collection of Messianic texts rather than a MS. of the O.T. 
(Burkitt, Zhe Gospel History and tts Transmission, pp. 125, 126). See also 
Allen, pp. Ixi, Ixii. 

*Comp. Con. Cels. iii. 1, where Origen states that the Jews of his own 
day, ‘‘approving what the Jews of former times dared to do against Jesus, 
> ge evil of Him, asserting that it was by a kind of sorcery (διά τινὸς yorrelas) 

t He passed Himself off for Him who was predicted by the Prophets as 
He that should come.” 


18 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [1]. 18-28 


Egypt, is quite independent of the narrative of Mt., and goes 
back to the first century. When Celsus criticizes Mt.’s story, 
he does so in a very different manner, and does not mention 
this tradition (Con. Cels. i. 66). The simplicity of the narrative 
in Mt. is a considerable mark of truth. It should be contrasted 
with the elaborate details in the Apocryphal Gospels ; see Pseudo- 
Matthew xvii._xxv.; Arabic Gospel of the Infancy ix.—xxvi. ; 
Gospel of Thomas, Latin form, iii. The second of these 
makes the stay in Egypt last three years; but it is unlikely that 
this rests on independent tradition. ‘The time is made long in 
order to have room for many miracles. 

The change of formula in introducing the prophecy in ver. 17 
is probably intentional. Instead of ‘in order that it might be 
fulfilled which was spoken by the Lord through the prophet’ 
(i. 22, 11. 15), we have, ‘Then was fulfilled that which was 
spoken through Jeremiah the prophet.’! The change is three- 
fold. Nothing is said about Divine purpose; nor about Divine 
utterance; and the name of the Prophet is given. Perhaps Mt. 
was unwilling to attribute the massacre at Bethlehem to God as 
designed by Him in order that His own word might be fulfilled. 
Possibly Jeremiah is named because he was the Prophet of doom 
and death, and in his mouth this tragic prediction was natural. 
Similar motives may have influenced the formula in xxvii. 9. 

The difficulty about the prophecy quoted in ver. 23 is one 
which our present knowledge does not enable us to solve. It is 
not certain that there is any original connexion between Ναζωραῖος 
and Na¢apa, and nothing in the O.T. seems to connect Ναζωραῖος 
with the Messiah. Ναζωραῖος occurs xxvi. 71; Lk. xviii. 373 Jn. 
xviii. 5, 7, xix. 19, and often in Acts. The form Na€apyvos is 
found in Lk. and uniformly in Mk., but nowhere in Mt., Jn., 
or Acts. The adjectives sometimes have a tinge of contempt, 
whereas ὃ ἀπὸ Ναζαρέτ (xxi. 11; Mk. 1. 9; Jn. i. 46; Acts x. 38) 
is a mere statement of fact. No connexion with ‘ Nazirite’ can 
be intended; our Lord was not a Nazirite. It is possible that 
the Evangelist is playing upon Aramaic or Hebrew words which 
resemble ‘Nazarene’ and mean ‘Branch’; and this solution is 
approved in Hastings’ DCG., art. ‘Nazarene,’ but it is not 
satisfactory. Zahn points out that there is no ‘saying’ (λεγόντων) 
after ‘Prophets,’ a word which Mt. commonly inserts when he 
quotes a prophetical utterance (10 22, ἴππ 15; ΤΠ 1 2 venta, 
Vill, 17% ΧΙ 17, XU. 35, XXL. ἢ XxXvil- OS ΘΟ. sail ΤΠ; RVers 
xxil. 31). The inference is that ‘He shall be called a Nazarene’ 


1 Possibly ‘ fulfilled’ implies more than is meant ; ‘then was exemplified,’ 
‘then there was an instance of,’ is perhaps all that is intended. ‘ Because 
they are not’ is vague; ‘because they are no more’ is the English phrase. 
‘Lamentation and’ (θρῆνος kal) is omitted in N B Z 22, Latt. Sah. Boh. Arm. 


II. 13-23] THE MESSIAH’S BIRTH AND INFANCY 19 


is not meant to be a quotation, but is the Evangelist’s justifica- 
tion of what precedes, ὅτε meaning not ‘that,’ but ‘because’ or 
‘for’: ‘for He shall be called a Nazarene.’ This harmonizes 
with Jerome’s suggestion that the reference is to passages in the 
Prophets which predict that the Messiah shall be despised. 

Mt. can hardly have known that Nazareth was the home of 
Joseph and Mary before the Birth at Bethlehem, for he treats 
the settlement of the Holy Family at Nazareth as remarkable 
and providential,—not at all as a matter of course. The return 
from Egypt is as divinely ordered as the flight into Egypt ; but, 
at first, all that is commanded is a return to Pa/estine, which, in 
true Jewish phraseology, is called ‘the land of Israel.’ Then, 
when Joseph is afraid to enter Judiea, a second command directs 
him to Gad/ee. That Joseph should fear to enter the territory 
of Archelaus was as natural as it was providential. Archelaus 
was the worst of Herod’s sons, and Josephus (#2. /. 11. vi. 2) tells 
us that, in order to show that he was a true son of that tyrant, 
he inaugurated his reign with a massacre of 3000 people. So 
Joseph is directed to Galilee, and there he himself selected 
Nazareth ; ‘that what was spoken by the Prophets might be 
fulfilled.’ 

As to the general credibility of this second chapter, and the 
way in which it reflects the condition of Palestine at the time, 
see W. C. Allen, ad /oc. pp. 14, 21, 22; G. H. Box, in the 
Interpreter, Jan. 1906, and Hastings’ DCG., artt. ‘ Egypt,’ 
‘Magi,’ ‘Innocents,’ ‘ Rachel.’ To what is said there may be 
added the fact that, respecting this period of the Messiah’s 
childhood, the Third Gospel gives us what we might have ex- 
pected to find in the First, while the First gives us what we might 
have expected to find in the Third. Antecedently, we should 
have looked for the account of the obedience to the Law paid 
by Mother and Child, and the visit of the Holy Family to the 
Temple, in the Jewish Gospel; while the visit of the Gentile 
Magi to the Saviour of the world would have fitted admirably 
into the universal Gospel of the Gentile Evangelist. But in this 
matter each writer gets beyond his own special sympathies and 
point of view ; and this is a valuable confirmation of the trust- 
worthiness of what he has written. Neither of them can be 
justly suspected of having imagined and given as history just 
what suited his own peculiar standpoint.! 

In this second chapter we seem to have a group of three 
events which are closely connected with one another: the visit 
of the Magi (1-12), the flight into Egypt (13-18), and the return 

1 That the flight into Egypt was providentially designed to form a decided 


break between the wonders at Bethlehem and the ordinary life at Nazareth is 
maintained by W. G. Elmslie, Zxfositor, ist series, vi. 403. 


20 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ΠῚ]. 1-12 


to Palestine (19-23). In what follows we have another group of 
three connected events: the preaching of John (iii. 1-12), the 
Baptism of the Messiah (13-17), and the Temptation (iv. 1-11). 


This chapter contains a considerable number of the expressions which are 
either peculiar to Mt. or are characteristic of his style: see above on ver. 12. 
Several of them are found in ch. i. also, and they go a long way towards 
proving that these first two chapters have the same author as the rest of 
the Gospel. The tables drawn up by Sir J. Hawkins (Hore Synoptice, 
pp- 3-9) bring this result out very clearly. ‘‘If the Nativity Story be not an 
integral part of the First Gospel, it must be counted one of the cleverest of 
literary adaptations, a verdict not likely to be passed on it by a sane criti- 
cism” (Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. p. 259). 

Characteristic : ἰδού (1, 19), προσκυνεῖν (2, 8, 11), συνάγειν (4), ἡγεμών (6), 
τότε (7, 11), φαίνεσθαι (7, 19), πορεύεσθαι (8, 9) καὶ ἰδού (9), σφόδρα (10), 
προσφέρειν (11), θησαυρός (11), ἀναχωρεῖν (12, 13, 14, 23), ὅρια (16), λεγόμενος 
(23), a πληρώθῃ (15), ὅπως πληρώθῃ (23), τότε ἐπληρώθη (17). Peculiar: 
κατ᾽ ὄναρ (12, 13, 19, 23), ῥηθέν (15, 17, 23); peculiar to this chapter: οὐδα- 
μῶς (6), ἀκριβοῦν (7, 16), τελευτή (14), θυμοῦσθαι (16), διετής (16). 

Mt. has three ways of pointing out the fulfilment of prophecy, and all 
three of them are found in these two chapters: it is in connexion with them 
that τὸ ῥηθέν is commonly used. An event took place, either ἵνα πληρώθῃ 
(i. 22, il. I5, iv. 14, xxi. 4, xxvi. 56=Mk. xiv. 49), or ὅπως πληρώθῃ 
(ii. 23, vill. 17, xii. 17, xili. 35); or it took place, and τότε ἐπληρώθη (11. 17, 
XxVil. 9)—what the Prophet had said. 


III. 1-IV. 11. THE PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY. 
III. 1-12. Zhe Herald of the Messiah. 


The Evangelist has shown us how the Magi from the East 
have done homage to the newborn Messiah, and how the 
usurper-king tried to kill Him and failed. The true King, 
exiled for a time, outlived the usurper and returned to His own 
country, but not as yet to reign. At last the time draws near, 
and He has His herald in John the Baptist. 

The appearance of the son of Zachariah as a Prophet on the 
banks of the Jordan, preaching repentance-baptism for the re- 
mission of sins, and proclaiming the near approach of the 
Kingdom of God, produced an excitement throughout the nation 
which it is not easy for us to estimate. After having had a long 


1This preparatory ministry of John is in all four Gospels. It is part of 
the earliest Christian tradition. Each Gospel has details which are not in 
the others, but all agree as to the chief elements. The revolutionary rite of 
repentance-baptism for Jews is in all four. The proclamation of the coming 
Messiah is distinct ; and the coming has two results,—redemption for those 
who are ready, and judgment for those who are not. See Briggs, Zhe 
Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 63 ff. ; 

It is possible that, in the quotation, ‘in the wilderness’ should be taken 
with ‘make ye ready the way of the Lord,’ as in the RV. of Is. xl. 3, and 
not with ‘ The voice of one crying.’ 


Se 


ΤΙ. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 21 


succession of Prophets, through whom close communion with 
Jehovah was always possible, there had been, since Malachi 
(c. 460-430 B.c.), four weary centuries, during which God 
seemed to have ceased to take interest in His people: ‘There 
was no voice, nor any that answered.’ This oppressive silence 
had at last been broken, and once more God had a message for 
the nation, spoken by the living voice of a herald sent by Him, 
and not merely recorded in the prophetic scrolls. But the 
message of this new Prophet was not altogether acceptable. It 
was a great joy that a Prophet had appeared. It was indeed 
good tidings that the Kingdom of God was at hand. But it was 
not such welcome news that not every child af Abraham would 
have the right to enter into the Kingdom; that many of them 
had no better right than Gentiles had to enter into it; and that 
even those who were not children of Abraham could win the 
right to enter. It had been the conviction of the Jews for many 
generations that salvation was for all of them, but for them only 
and the few proselytes who formally joined them. For some 
time they had come to believe that the Advent of the Messiah 
would be both a time of joy and a time of judgment; but the 
joys of the Kingdom were to be for themselves, while God’s 
judgments were to fall upon the Gentiles. It shows the great 
originality of John asa Prophet that he entirely broke with these 
ideas. God had no such plan as that of a kingdom reserved for 
Abraham’s children and peopled entirely by them. Out of the 
most unpromising material He could make subjects who in the 
Kingdom would be equal to the children of Abraham. And the 
axe of God’s judgments was not for the wild olives only. LZvery 
tree that is not bringing forth good fruit is in peril. What is 
needed to secure entrance into the Kingdom is repentance, 
a change of heart (μετάνοια), a fundamental revolution in 
moral purpose; and, as a sign and seal of this fundamental 
change, he required all who came to him confessing their sins to 
submit to the rite of baptism. In this he conformed to the ideas 
of his nation. In the East, nothing of importance takes place in 
religion without some external act which appeals to the senses 
and the imagination; and hence John’s baptism. It was this 
surprising requirement that won for him the title by which he 
became known, ‘the Baptist’ or ‘the Baptizer’ (Mk. i. 4, vi. 
14, 24). And it was this which made the emissaries of the 
hierarchy challenge his right to make Jews submit to this sym- 
bolical bath (Jn. 1. 25). It might almost be said that John had 
excommunicated the whole nation, and would re-admit none to 
communion, unless they professed, not merely sorrow for their 
sins, but resolution to break off from them and start afresh. As 
a token of this solemn change of life, he plunged them under the 


22 GOSPEL ACCORDING LOTS ΜΕΥ RENEW: [III. 1-12 


water, to bury the polluted past, and then made them rise again 
to newness of life. Analogies for this symbolical washing have 
been sought in the levitical purifications of the Jews and the 
frequent bathings of the Essenes. But there was this marked dif- 
ference. These purifications and bathings were repeated daily, 
or hourly, if technical pollution was suspected ; whereas John’s 
baptism was administered only once. It represented a decisive 
crisis, which, it was assumed, could never be experienced again. 

It has been discussed whether ‘baptism zzo (εἰς) remission 
of sins’ means that forgiveness was the immediate effect of the 
baptism, or that it was an ultimate result towards which the rite 
was preparatory. Was it a symbol that the baptized person was 
then and there forgiven, or a pledge that he would be forgiven ? 
The latter seems to be correct (see Swete on Mk. i. 4).}1 Cyril 
of Jerusalem, in comparing John’s baptism with the Christian 
rite, says that the former “‘ bestowed ov/y the remission of sins” 
(Catech. xx. 6; comp. iii. 7). But there is nothing in Scripture 
to show that it did as much as that. ‘Tertullian points out that 
‘baptism for the remission of sins’ refers to a future remissign, 
which was to follow in Christ (De Zaft. x.). ‘The expression of 
Ambrose, that one is the ‘baptism of repentance,’ the other the 
‘baptism of grace,’ leaves the question of forgiveness open. But, 
if John had professed to forgive sins, would not that have been 
challenged, as it was in our Lord’s case (ix. 3; Mk. i. 7; 
Lk. v. 21, vil. 49)? And, if it had been generally understood 
that John’s baptism was a washing away of sins, would our Lord 
have submitted to it? Its main aspect was a preparation for the 
Kingdom, and as such it fitted well into the opening of the 
Messiah’s ministry. To every one else this preparation was an act 
of repentance. ‘The Messiah, who needed no repentance, could 
yet accept the preparation. John’s rite consecrated the people 
to receive salvation ; it consecrated the Messiah to bestow it. 

Of the two notes in John’s trumpet-call it was the second 
which characterized him as the herald of the Messiah. The old 
Prophets had cried, ‘Repent ye’: he alone was commissioned 
to proclaim that ‘the Kingdom of Heaven is at hand.’ It isa 
new reason for repentance that the long-looked-for Kingdom 
would come soon. 

John’s baptism should be compared, not so much with 
levitical. purifications or Essene bathings, which a person could 
administer to himself and could repeat, as with the baptism of 
proselytes, which was administered by another and could not be 
repeated. It did not merely restore the cleansed person to his 
normal condition ; it admitted toa new condition. The practice 


1Salmon thinks otherwise; but his reasons are not convincing (Zhe 
Human Element in the Gospels, p. 46). 


4 


III. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 23 


of admitting proselytes by baptism was in existence before John’s 
day, and it no doubt influenced him. The peculiarity of John’s 
baptism was that it was administered to Jews. By it the Jewish 
nation was forcibly instructed in the momentous truth, that, 
although they were Abraham’s seed, they could not enter the 
Messianic Kingdom, which was now so near, without a thorough 
moral purification. It was John’s function to reach men’s 
consciences; and no earlier Prophet had been more successful 
in doing so. Those who came to him not merely confessed 
their sins; by submitting to baptism they made a public resolu- 
tion to renounce them. 

There are questions of chronology and geography which 
cannot be determined with certainty ; but they are not of great 
importance, as is shown by the small amount of attention 
bestowed on them by the Evangelists. We do not at all know 
how long John was in the wilderness before he came forward as 
a Prophet and as the herald of the Messiah. And it is not easy 
to make out exactly when and where he and the Messiah came 
in contact with one another, or when the Ministry of the Messiah 
begins. On the former question see Sanday, Sacred Sites of the 
Gospel, p. 23, and articles on ‘ Bethabara’: on the latter question 
see Briggs, Wew Light on the Life of Jesus, pp. 1-16. 

This opening paragraph of the account of the Preparation 
for the Ministry of the Messiah is in two sections: the Appear- 
ance of the Baptist (1-6), and the Preaching of the Baptist 
(7-12). Itis in the first section that both Mt. and Lk. begin 
to make use of Mk., and here what is called “ the triple tradition” 
begins. That expression is convenient, but it must not be 
understood as meaning that in such places we have three 
independent accounts of the same facts. All three accounts 
are based on one and the same source, viz. that which lies at the 
back of Mk. In the second section Mt. and Lk. both make 
use of another source, either unknown to Mk. or very little used 
by him (Q). They insert the contents of vv. 7-10 before 
ver. 11, and of ver. 12 after ver. 11. But in the first section 
Mt. and Lk. agree with one another against Mk. in two remark- 
able particulars. Mk. quotes the prophecy from Is. xl. 3 first 
and then mentions the appearance of the Baptist, while Mt. and 
Lk. place the appearance of John before the quotation. Again, 
Mk. quotes Mal. iii. 1 along with Is. xl. 3 as one utterance. 
Both Mt. and Lk. omit Mal. iii. 1 here and give it elsewhere 
(xi. 10; Lk. vii. 27), viz. in Christ’s praise of John after his 
messengers had departed. 


1 On the problem presented by these agreements of Mt. and Lk. against 
Mk. sce Hawkins, Hore Synoptica, pp. 174, 175; Burkitt, Zhe Gospel 
History and its Transmission, pp. 40-58. 


24 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [III. 1-18 


It is obvious that the ministry of the Baptist was a large 
portion of the preparation for that of the Messiah. ‘There were 
three great occasions on which the Forerunner preceded the 
Messiah: at his birth, at the beginning of his ministry, and at 
his death. With regard to the last, Christ Himself called atten- 
tion to the precedence and the resemblance: ‘ Even so shall the 
Son of man also suffer of them’ (xvii. 12). 

Mk. begins his narrative at this point. Both Mt. and Lk. 
give some account of the childhood of the Messiah before - 
joining the narrative of Mk., but they make the transition to 
Mk. in very different ways. Mt. starts with the vague expression, 
‘Now in those days’ (Εν δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις), which is not 
in Mk., but which reminds us of the O.T. Comp. Ex. ii. 
ΤΊ, 233 Jude. xviti. 1, sod. 25 ls. xxxviina- his sismn marked 
contrast to the care with which the historian Luke endeavours 
to date the beginning of the ministry of the Baptist (Lk. iii. 1, 2), 
and it seems to show that, as in the first two chapters, Mt. does 
not take much interest in chronology. Without any intimation 
of the amount of interval, he leaps over some thirty years to those 
days in which the ministry of the Herald of the Messiah began. 

The description of the Baptist given by Josephus (Avwz.. 
XVII. v. 2) should be compared with that in the Gospels. He 
says that he was “ἃ good man, and exhorted the Jews to exercise 
virtue by practising righteousness towards one another and piety 
towards God, and thus to come to baptism. For in this way 
their baptism also would be acceptable to Him, if they practised 
it not for the cancelling (παραιτήσει) of certain sins, but for the 
purification of the body, provided that the soul had been 
thoroughly cleansed beforehand by righteousness.” John’s hard 
mode of life was not mere asceticism. His object was not to 
make men ascetics, but to rescue them from the wrath to come. 
It was imminent, and in order to escape it they must abandon 
their pleasant sins. To help them towards this he lived a life 
of self-denial, wearing the coarse garment of a Prophet (2 Kings 
i. 8; Zec. xiii. 4), and living on such coarse food as could be 
found in the wilderness.!_ Lk. omits this account of John’s mode 
of life, and Mk. places it after the statement respecting the 
success of his ministry, which attracted multitudes from long 
distances. 

‘The Kingdom of Heaven,’ or, more literally, ‘The Kingdom 
of the Heavens,’ is an expression which occurs 32 times in 

1 Tt is doubtful whether the garment was a camel’s skin with the hair on, 
or cloth made of camel’s hair; whether the ‘locusts’? were the insects or 
carob-beans ; and whether the honey was that made by wild bees or the gum 
ofatree. Seeartt. ‘Camel,’ ‘ Locust,’ ‘ Husk,’ ‘ Honey’ in DCG. and τις. 


Bibl, Did John adopt his dress in order to intimate to the people that he 
was a Prophet? Comp. xi. 14, xvii. 10-13; Lk. i, 17. 


ΤΙ. 1-190] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 25 


Με, while Mk. has ‘The Kingdom of God’ 14 times, and Lk. 
has it 32 times. With the possible exception of xix. 24= 
Mk. x. 25, Mt. either omits or paraphrases Mk.’s expression, 
or changes it to ‘The Kingdom of the Heavens.’ We may 
conjecture that in the Aramaic Logia of S. Matthew, and in 
the Greek translation used by our Evangelist, the phrase was 
‘Kingdom of the Heavens,’ and that Mk. and Lk., writing for 
Gentiles, preferred a less Jewish: phrase. But in xii. 28 and 
xxi. 31, 43,*Mt. has ‘The Kingdom of God,’ perhaps to mark 
some difference of meaning which he thought was required. 
For him, ‘The Kingdom of the Heavens’ is the Messianic 
Kingdom, which is declared to be near at hand; and in these 
three passages he may have thought that this meaning was not 
quite suitable. But the probability is, that there is no real 
difference of meaning between the two phrases, that our Lord 
used both, and that He often spoke of the Kingdom of Heaven, 
in accordance with Jewish usage. The Jews had many devices 
for avoiding the use of the sacred Name, and one of these was 
to speak of Heaven, when they meant God, as in the Parable 
of the Lost Son (Lk. xv. 18, 21). So also of the Baptism of 
John (Mt. xxi. 25). This reverence had degenerated into super- 
stition, but our Lord would be likely to respect usage which had 
originated in reverence. Nevertheless, by frequently speaking 
of God, He gave no countenance to superstition. Mk. and Lk. 
may sometimes have changed ‘ Heaven’ into ‘God,’ because the 
latter was more intelligible to Gentiles; but Mt. has certainly 
made changes in order to avoid using the word ‘God.’ In his 
Gospel Christ speaks of God as ‘Father’ more than 40 times ; 
in Lk. this occurs less than 20 times, in Mk. only 4 or 5 times. 
His bias, therefore, is manifest.} 

This Kingdom is the rule of God, whether in the human 
heart, or in society. It exists now, but it has its full realization 
in eternity.2, Some have to seek and gain it. ‘Those who have 
gained it have to labour to retain it, and this retaining may be 
regarded as winning it. 

It is to be noted that Christ Himself never gave any 
definition of the Kingdom, and perhaps it is not wise for us 
to attempt to do so. Any definition which we could frame would 
be almost certain to exclude important elements of truth. He 
seems to have used more than one phrase to express it, and He 
places each phrase in a variety of contexts which do not always 
seem to be quite harmonious. ‘The idea of the Kingdom is 


1See O. Holtzmann, Life of Jesus, pp. 160 ff. 

*See A. Robertson, Hegnum Dei, Hampton Lectures 1901, pp. 75-77; 
= ace S. Paul's equivalent, Sanday in the Journal of Th. St., July 1900, 
p- 451. 


26 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [III. 1-12 


planted in the minds of His hearers as a sort of nucleus round 
which different truths may gather. The Kingdom is sometimes 
the Way, sometimes the Truth, sometimes the Life. Perhaps 
most of all it is the Life. It is something living, organic, and 
inspiring, in which the will of God, through the free and loyal 
action of those who receive it, prevails. It works inwardly, both 
in individuals and communities, but it manifests itself outwardly. 
It wins adherents, and inspires and controls them. And it 
possesses powers, not merely of growth and improvement, but 
of recovery and reformation. While it prevails against the 
opposition and persecution of enemies, it triumphs also in the 
long-run over the errors and slackness and corruption of its own 
supporters. We possess it, and yet we have to seek it and win 
it. It is within us, and yet we have to strive to enter it. The 
truth about it is so vast that we need to have it stated in all 
kinds of ways in order to appropriate some of it. 

In this world there is so much that cannot be regarded as part 
of the Kingdom, or even brought into harmony with it, that the 
tendency to connect the idea of it almost entirely with the 
future is very natural; and that is what we find in the First 
Gospel. To the Evangelist the Kingdom of Heaven is that- 
Kingdom which the Messiah will found or bring with Him, when 
He returns in glory on the clouds of Heaven (xxiv. 30, xxvi. 64) ; 
it is still in the future. The parables in which the judgment, 
with bliss for the righteous and woe for the wicked, is indicated, 
represent this judgment, and the consequent bliss or woe, as 
future. This is evident in the Tares (xii. 37 ff.), the Virgins 
(xxv. 1 ff.), and the Talents (xxv. 14 ff.). Still more clearly in 
the discourse about the Sheep and the Goats (xxv. 31 ff.). 

And this return of the Messiah to begin the Kingdom was 
believed to be imminent. It would follow closely on the 
tribulation which must result from the destruction of Jerusalem 
(xxiv. 16, 29), and some of the generation then living would live 
to see it (xxiv. 34; comp. xvi. 28). Cheerful trust and con- 
fidence was to be the attitude of those who looked forward to its 
coming. The faithful were to pray for its coming (vi. 10). It 
was well worth while to part with one’s dearest possessions and 
even with life itself, in order to secure admission into it (xill. 44— 
Ab» ἘΜ 25; SO) 

‘The Kingdom of the Heavens’ is not the Church. The 
Church is visible, the Kingdom not. The Kingdom is the end, 
complete, perfect, and final; the Church is the means to the 
end, working towards perfection and striving to realize its ideal. 
So far as it expresses the will and character of the Messiah, the 
Church may be called the Kingdom of Christ, but it is not what 
is set before us in this Gospel as ‘the Kingdom of the Heavens,’ 


ΠῚ. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 27 


In this verse the leading idea is that of warning : ‘repent, for the 
judgment of impenitent sinners is at hand.’ 

The quotation from Is. xl. 3 is in all four Gospels, and it 
is clear from Jn. i. 23 that the Baptist applied the words to 
himself. He was a Voice making known the Word, and mean- 
ingless without the Word. The quotation is mainly from the 
Septuagint. The words from Malachi are given xi. 10. 

John consciously took Elijah as his model (2 Kings i. 8). 
There is the same rough garb and ascetic life, the same isolation 
from society and fearlessness towards it, the same readiness to 
rebuke either kings or multitudes. Herod and Herodias are to 
him as Ahab and Jezebel to his predecessor. The lives of both 
Prophets are a protest against the corruptions of contemporary 
society. But far less than Elijah is John a despairing pessimist : 
his message is full of hope. And in this Gospel, as in Mk. and 
Jn., he comes on the scene with the same startling suddenness 
with which Elijah enters (1 Kings xvii. 1). “John leaps, as it 
were, into the arena full grown and full armed” (A. Maclaren ; 
comp. Ptre Didon, Jésus Christ, pp. 191, 196). But his asceti- 
cism was not mere acting; it was the expression of his character 
and the instrument of his work. ΤῸ the self-indulgent, self- 
denial is impressive. 

In the summary of the Baptist’s preaching (7-12), which 
perhaps both Mt. and Lk. take from memoirs of the Baptist 
(either written or in a stereotyped tradition), the dominant idea 
is that of judgment. In Lk. (iii. 7) this stern warning is addressed 
to the people ; but it is probable that it was addressed to the 
Pharisees and Sadducees, to whom it is much more appropriate.! 
As addressed to them it shows how, from the very first, the 
leading sections of the nation were told that their rejection of the 
Messiah would be fatal. John welcomed the multitudes, but he 
suspected, or by spiritual intuition discerned, the insincerity of 
these professional religious guides. The formal piety of the 
Pharisees and the self-indulgent scepticism of the Sadducees 
would be equally hateful to him, and he meets them with 
indignant surprise. Why had they come? Cunosity about this 
revolutionary preacher, possibly a wish to get a handle against 
him, or to learn how he gained such a hold upon the multitude, 
may have influenced them; or the pressure of the people may 
have been too great for them to resist—they must come and see 
for themselves. All that is clear about them is that John does 

1 When Mt. and Lk. differ in those sections which are common to both 
but are absent from Mk., it is generally Mt. that seems to be nearer to the 


original source. Twice elsewhere in Mt. (xii. 34, xxiii. 33) the Pharisces 
are addressed as ‘vipers’ brood,’ both times by our Lord. There is no 


or to either passage in Lk. Here the thought may be of snakes flying 
fore a prairie-fire, 


2ὃ GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [III. 1-12 


not regard them as true penitents. They claim to be Abraham’s 
children, but they have a very different parentage. Their 
serpent-like natures are among the crooked things that must be 
made straight, before they can be fit for a baptism of repentance. 
If they are in earnest, let them give some proof of it, and never 
eBepOse that mere birth from Abraham can save them} (Rom. 
i. 17-29). See Montefiore, Synoptic Gospels, p. 463. 

This is the first #zarked instance of the feeling of abhorrence 
for the Pzarisees which runs through the First Gospel, and which 
continues down to xxvii. 62, where see note. Neither in Mk. 
nor in Lk. is there any indication that the Pharisees were 
denounced by the Baptist. And Jn., though he says that the 
Pharisees sent to inquire about the Baptist (i. 19, 24), gives no 
denunciation of them. 

Yet the Baptist seems to think them not quite hopeless. He 
exhorts them to bring forth good fruit before it is too late (8-10). 
He warns them that even now, although they do not at all 
expect it, judgment is at the door, and procrastination will be 
disastrous. Every one who does not repent will be destroyed 
(vii. 19) like a fruitless tree.? 


Here the address to the Pharisees and Sadducees, which’ 


Mt. and Lk. have in common, ends. What follows (11, 12) is 
common to all four, but by the others is placed somewhat 
differently (Mk. 1. 7,8; Lk. ii. 16,17; Jn. i. 26,27). Mt. adds 
it to the address to the Pharisees, with which it does not agree. 
John was not baptizing ¢#em unto repentance; nor would he 
have promised that the Messiah would baptize ¢hem with the 
Holy Spirit. But the ruling idea of this second address (vz. 11, 
12) is still one of judgment. 

It is his office to bind them to a new life, symbolized by 
immersion in water. But One far mightier, whose bondservant 
he is unworthy to be,® is coming to immerse them in an element 
far more potent—the Holy Spirit and fire. Mt. alone has ‘unto 
repentance’ (11) ; comp. Xxvi. 28. 

The meaning of ‘ baptizing with fire’? (which is not in Mk. 
or Jn.) is difficult. Apparently the same persons (‘you’) are 
baptized with the Spirit and with fire. In that case, the ‘ fire’ 
would mean the illuminating, kindling, purifying character of the 
Messiah’s baptism (Mal. 11. 2, 3) to all those who prepare them- 

1 On the variation between μὴ δόξητε (Mt.) and μὴ ἄρξησθε (Lk.) see 
J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, i. p. 15. 

*In the statement that God can raise up children to Abraham out of the 
most unlikely material, we have another intimation that Gentiles may come 
in to enjoy that which Jews neglect or abuse. 

: The aorist βαστάσαι may mean ‘not worthy to carry His sandals even 
once.’ So also in Mk. i. 7, λῦσαι τ. ἱμάντα. The baptizing in Jordan may 
have suggested the carrying of sandals at the bath. 


III. 1-12] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 29 


selves to receive it. But the ‘you’ may embrace the two classes 
of penitent and impenitent ; and in the next verse two classes are 
clearly distinguished. On this hypothesis it is commonly sup- 
posed that the graces of the Spirit are for the one, and penal fire 
for the other. There is yet a third possibility : that both classes 
are baptized in the Spirit and in fire. The result of such 
baptism will be, that those who have prepared themselves for 
the Messiah will be enabled to attain to that righteousness to 
which repentance-baptism leads; they will be purified, warmed, 
and enlightened ; while those who have refused to prepare them- 
selves will be consumed, as chaff, with unquenchable fire! The 
same influences to the one class are salvation, to the other 
destruction. But, in any case, we must beware of drawing 
unwarranted conclusions from metaphorical language. Just as 
‘fire’ tells us nothing about the manner in which God’s 
judgments are executed upon the unrepentant, so ‘ unquenchable’ 
tells us nothing about the duration of the punishment. ‘Un- 
quenchable’ (ἄσβεστος) does not necessarily mean that the fire 
will burn for ever; still less that it will burn, but never consume, 
what is in it; but rather that it is so fierce that it cannot be 
extinguished. Here it is expressly stated that the worthless 
material will be consumed. But inferences drawn from meta- 
phors are very insecure (see on v. 26). 

In ver. 12 Mt. returns to the source which he uses in common 
with Lk. So far as there is difference of wording, Mt. seems 
again to be more criginal. The repetition of ‘His’ (αὐτοῦ) in 
both cases is remarkable. It is ‘His fan,’ and ‘His threshing- 
floor,’ and ‘ His wheat.’ In some texts it is also ‘ His garner,’ as 
in Lk. But it is not His chaff or His fire. This Mightier than 
John is not, like John himself, a mere instrument: He is King 
in the Kingdom which John has come to announce. It is also 
remarkable that neither here nor in the message which he sends 
to Jesus (xi. 3) does John speak of Him as the Christ. The 
reason may possibly be that the popular ideas respecting the 
Messiah were so grossly erroneous. 

In. the summaries of the Baptist’s preaching, two verses 
(11, 12) are in all four Gospels ; four (7-10) are common to Mt, 
and Lk., while the remainder are peculiar to Lk. (iii. 10-14). 
“It is natural to believe that those verses are oldest which are 
most frequently produced, and those the latest which are in one 

1 The Sinaitic Syriac places the ‘fire’ before the ‘ Holy Spirit’; and 
some authorities omit ‘and in fire.’ Briggs thinks that in the original 
Aramaic there was no mention of the Spirit, and that the line ran: ‘ He will 
baptize you with fire’ (714 Messiah of the Gospels, p. 67). The idea of 
5 ment was probably uppermost in John’s mind, when he spoke of 

ptizing in fire. Or ‘fire’ may refer to the persecution which the baptized 
must expect, 


30 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [1Π1. 18-17 


Gospel only” (Wright, Syzopsis, p. 6). The inference is not 
quite secure. 


ΤΙ, 18-17. Zhe Messtah baptized by the Herald and proclaimed 
by God to be His Son. 


Painters have made us familiar with the idea that the Christ 
and the Baptist were playmates during their childhood ; but we do 
not know that they ever met, until Jesus came to be baptized by 
John. The absence of evidence makes a previous meeting im- 
probable. And just as we do not know how long John was in 
the wilderness before he came forward as a Prophet, so we do 
not know how long he had been working as a Prophet and as 
‘the Baptist’ when the Messiah came to him. Mt. gives us no 
more than his characteristic ‘Then,’ ze. during the time when 
John was preaching and baptizing. And the Messiah came 
expressly to be baptized. It was not because John recognized 
Him as the Messiah that he was at first unwilling to baptize Him. 
John had not yet received the sign by which he was to know the 
Messiah, and until this special revelation was granted to him he 
was as ignorant as others that Jesus was the Christ (Jn. i. 33). . 
But he baptized no one without a preliminary interview, which in 
all other cases was a confession of sins as a guarantee of repent- 
ance. The preliminary interview with his kinsman from Nazareth 
convinced John that he was in the presence of One who had no 
sins to confess, and who therefore, in an unspeakable degree, was 
morally his superior. It would be far more fitting that he should 
confess his sins to Jesus and be baptized by Him, the only 
Sinless One. And Jesus, by His reply, ‘ Suffer it to be so zow,’ 
seems to admit that John’s plea for an interchange of positions 
is not a false one. He knows, far better than John himself, His 
own superiority ; but He also knows that what both of them 
have to do is to fulfil what God has willed. It was God’s 
will that all Israel should be baptized and enter the Kingdom, 
and God’s own Son, who claimed no exemption from paying 
tribute to the Temple (xvii. 25, 26), claims no exemption here. 
At the end of His ministry, He was to be baptized in suffer- 
ing (Lk. xi. 50; Mk. x. 38), and to bear the sins of others, as a 
sinless Victim, on the tree (1 Pet. ii. 24). Must He not, at the 
beginning of His ministry, express His sympathy with those who 
were burdened by sin, although He had none of His own, by 
submitting to be baptized by John? He, like others, could bury 
His past beneath the waters of Jordan, and rise again to a life in 
accordance with God’s will. The change with them was from a 
life of sin, displeasing to God, to a life of righteousness, accept- 
able to Him. The change with Him was from the home-life of 


III. 13-17] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 31 


intellectual and spiritual development (Lk. ii. 52) to the life of 
public ministry as the Messiah ; but both were equally pleasing 
to God. The thirty years of peaceful preparation are buried ; 
and the Messiah comes out of Jordan for the storm and stress of 
the work that His Father has given Him to do. 

We need not infer from the words ‘Jesus cometh from 
Galilee’ (Mk. ‘came from Nazareth of Galilee’) that our Lord 
was the first who came to John from that district. More 
probably the expression merely calls attention to the fact that 
the Messiah now leaves His home and is seen in public. The 
attempt of John to prevent Him from being baptized by him, 
and Christ’s reply to him, are recorded by Mt. alone ; and the 
reply is the first utterance attributed to the Messiah in this 
Gospel. But we need not suppose that they are invented by the 
Evangelist to get rid of the difficulty of a sinless Messiah accept- 
ing repentance-baptism. Could Mt. have invented the Messiah’s 
reply? What the imagination of Jewish Christians of the first 
ages could do in dealing with this difficulty is seen from a 
fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews which is 
preserved by Jerome (Adv. Pe/ag. iii. 2). ‘ Behold the Mother 
of the Lord and His brethren said to Him, John the Baptist 
baptizeth for the remission of sins ; let us go and be baptized by 
him. But He said to them, What sin have I committed, that I 
should go and be baptized by him? Except perchance this very 
thing that I have said is ignorance.” A similar narrative was 
‘contained in a writing called the Preaching of Paul, as is seen 
from the Zractatus de Rebaptismate, 17 (Hartel, ii. p. 90), where 
it is said that in the Predicatio Pauli, ‘in opposition to all the 
Scriptures, you will find Christ, the only person who was 
absolutely free from fault, both making confession respecting 
His own sin, and that almost against His will He was compelled 
by His Mother Mary to receive the baptism of John; and also 
that, when He was being baptized, fire was seen upon the water, 
which is not written in any Gospel.” But, as Klostermann 
remarks, the difficulty felt about the baptism of Jesus is strong 
evidence to its being an historical fact. 

It is here that we come on the first of the points of contact between Mt. 
and the Epistles of Ignatius. That Ignatius knew Mt. cannot reasonably be 
doubted ; and in him we have a marked illustration of what is so common a 
feature in early Christian literature, that parallels with Mt. are more frequent 
and closer than parallels with Mk. or Lk. This is the case in Hermas and 
2 Clement, perhaps also in 1 Clement and Polycarp. As soon as this Gospel 
was published, it seems to have become the favourite; and even now it is 
pape more read than the others. Ignatius (Smyrn. 1) speaks of our 

rd as “‘ truly born of a virgin, and baptized by John that all righteousness 
might be fulfilled by Him” (ἵνα πληρωθῇ πᾶσα δικαιοσύνη), a reason for His 
Baptism which is given by Mt. alone. Comp. Ign. /o/. 1, πάντας βάσταζε, 
ὧς καί σε ὁ Κύριος... πάντων τὰς νόσους βάσταζε, with Mt. viii. 17; Pol. 2, 


32 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ΠΙ|. 18-17 


φρόνιμος γίνου ws ὁ ὄφις ἐν πᾶσιν, καὶ ἀκέραιος ws ἣ περιστερά, with Mt. x. 16; 
21. 5, εἰ γὰρ ἑνὸς καὶ δευτέρου προσευχὴ τοσαύτην ἰσχὺν ἔχει, with ΜΈ, xviii. 
19, 20; 321. 6, οὕτως δεῖ ἡμὰς αὐτὸν δέχεσθαι, ὡς αὐτὸν τὸν πέμψαντα, with 
Mt. x. 40; Zrall. 11 (Philad. 3), οὗτοι γὰρ οὔκ εἰσιν φυτεία πατρός, with 
Mt. xv. 13; and Smyrn. 6, ὁ χωρῶν χωρείτο, with Mt. xix. 12. See 
Lightfoot’s notes in each place. There are other passages, less clear than 
these, where Ignatius seems to recall Mt. 

Mk. tells us that Jesus, ‘straightway coming up out of the water, saw 
the heavens being rent asunder’ (εἶδεν σχιζομένους τοὺς οὐρανούς), a graphic 
expression, which is the more remarkable because there seems to be no other 
example of this verb (which all three have of the rending of the veil of the 
Temple) being used of rending the heavens. Here both Mt. and Lk. have 
the O.T. verb, which was evidently in common use for the opening of the 
heavens (ἀνεῴχθησαν αὐτῷ οἱ οὐρανοί) : comp. Jn. 1. 51; Acts x. 11; Rev. 
iv. I. Soalso in the Septuagint: Is. Ixiv. 1, Ezek. i. 1, which is perhaps 
the earliest example of the idea of the heavens being opened. In Gen. vii. 11 
the windows of heaven are opened for the rain, and in Ps. Ixxviii. 23 the 
doors of heaven for the manna, but that is not the same idea ; nevertheless 
there also the same verb is used. The Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs 
exhibit the same constant usage: Zevz ii. 6, v. I, xvill, 6; Judah xxiv. 2. 
The last two passages are Messianic, and are strikingly parallel to the Gospel 
narrative. ‘* The heavens shall be opened, and from the temple of glory shall 
come upon him sanctification, with the Father’s voice as from Abraham to 
Isaac. And the glory of the Most High shall be uttered over him, and the 
spirit of understanding and sanctification shal] rest upon him [in the water].” 
The last three words are probably a Christian interpolation of early date. 
Near the end of the passage we read that ‘‘the Lord shall rejoice in His 
children, and be well pleased in His beloved ones for ever”; καὶ εὐδοκήσει 
ἐπὶ τοῖς ἀγαπητοῖς αὐτοῦ ἕως αἰῶνος (xviii. 13). The similar passage in the 
Testament of Judah runs thus: ‘‘ And no sin shall be found in him. And 
the heavens shall be opened unto him, to pour out the spirit, the blessing 
of the Holy Father.” For the combination of opened heavens with a voice 
from heaven, comp. the Apocalypse of Baruch xxii. 1: ‘‘The heavens 
were opened, and I saw, and power was given to me, and a voice was 
heard from on high.”! For the opening of the heavens without a voice 
comp. Οἷς. De Dzvin. i. 43; Livy, xxii. 1. Other references in Klostermann 
on Mk. 


Mt. follows Mk. in stating that Jesus saw the Spirit 
descending; Jn. says that the Baptist saw it; Lk. that the 
descent took place as Jesus was praying. We need not suppose 
that others saw it, or even that others were present. Possibly 
our Lord waited till He could be alone with John. With the 
symbolical vision of the dove we may compare the symbolical 
visions of Jehovah granted to Moses and other Prophets; and 
we have no right to say that such visions are impossible, and 
that those who say that they have had them are victims of a 
delusion. Every messenger of God must be endowed with the 
Spirit of God in order to fulfil his mission ; and there is nothing 
incredible in the statement that in the case of the Messiah, as in 
the case of the Apostles, this endowment was made known by a 


1 Zahn compares the combination, ‘opened His mouth and taught’ (v. 2) ; 
comp. Acts vill. 35, Χ. 34, XViil. 14. 


ΤΙ. 18-17) | PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 33 


perceptible sign. In the case of Old Testament Prophets, there 
was sometimes a violent effect on body and mind, when the 
Spirit of the Lord came upon them. But here, as at Pentecost, 
all is peaceful, and peaceful symbols are seen. The sinless Son 
of Man is the place where this Dove can find a rest for its foot 
(Gen. viii. 9) and abide upon Him (15. xlii. 1). Again, in the 
case of the repentant people, the baptism in water was by John, 
the baptism in the Spirit was to be looked for from the Messiah. 
In the Messiah’s case, the two baptisms are simultaneous. He 
who is to bestow the Spirit Himself received it, and He receives 
it under the form of a dove. 

The contrast between this anointing of the Messiah, this 
coronation of the promised King, and the Herald’s proclamation 
of the coming of the Kingdom is remarkable. John had foreseen 
that the coming of the Messiah would be accompanied by an 
outpouring of the Spirit; but his mind is full of the thought that 
God’s vineyard has become a wilderness, and that vast changes 
are necessary in order to make Israel in any degree ready for the 
coming of the Messiah. Many, perhaps most, will be found still 
unprepared, and ‘the Coming’ will be chiefly a coming of 
judgment. To him, therefore, the outpouring of the Spirit is a 
baptizing in fire. Fire to him is the most fitting symbol. But 
when the Messiah Himself comes to him, John sees the Spirit 
descending in the form of a dove (see Driver on Gen. i. 2 and 
Deut. xxxii. 11). Meekness and gentleness are the qualities 
commonly associated with the dove. The metaphor of fire is 
true; the Spirit of necessity searches and consumes; but the 
attributes of the Dove are equally true. The Messiah is ‘meek 
and lowly in heart’ (xi. 29, xxi. 5); it is by meekness that His 
ministers prevail (x. 16), and it is the meek who inherit the earth 
(v. 5). 

But we are not to understand that He who was conceived 
by the Spirit was devoid of the Spirit until the Baptism ;? nor 
that the gift of the Spirit then made any change in His nature. 


1 It is of no importance whether the eye saw and the ear heard ; whether, 
if others had been present, they would have seen and heard. What is of 
importance is, that there was a real manifestation, a communication from 

to man, and no mere delusion of a disordered brain. What was per- 
ceived as a dove was the Spirit of God, and what was perceived as a voice 
was the word of God. 

2 It was perhaps in order to avoid this idea that Mt. (16), followed by 
Lk., changed the εἰς αὐτόν of Mk. into ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν : ‘info Him’ might seem to 
imply that previously there had been a void. In the Ebionite Gospel quoted 
by ys pea (Her. xxx. 13) the dove is described as entering into Him: 
εἶδεν τὸ πνεῦμα τὸ ἅγιον ἐν εἴδει περιστερᾶς κατελθούσης καὶ εἰσελθούσης els 
αὐτόν. There also we have ‘“‘a great light” accompanying the voice. 
ss) aller M. 7ry. 88; also the Diatessaron (Burkitt, Evangelion da- 
Mepharreshe, ii. p. 115). 


3 


34 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 8. MATTHEW [IITI. 18-17 


Some Gnostics imagined that the descent of the Spirit then was 
the moment of the Incarnation, and that, until the Baptism, He 
was a mere man, the son of Joseph and Mary. ‘That is not the 
teaching of Scripture ; nor is it easier to believe than what is told 
us in Scripture. But the new gift of the Spirit may have illumin- 
ated even Him, and made Him more fully aware of His relations 
to God and to man (Lk. i. 52). For Him it marked the 
beginning of His public career as the Messiah, like the anointing 
of a king. For John it was the promised revelation, and he now 
had Divine authority for declaring that the Coming One had 
come. This was the last of his three functions. He had 
previously to predict the coming of the Messiah, and to prepare 
the people for His coming. When he has pointed out the 
Messiah, his work will be nearly complete. 

The voice from heaven here, and at the Transfiguration, and 
before the Passion (Jn. xii. 28), follows upon our Lord’s prayer, 
and may be regarded as the answer to it. He who on the Cross 
cried, ‘Why hast Thou forsaken Me?’ may have been, on each 
of these occasions, capable of receiving help from such testimony 
as this from the Father! Both Mk. and Lk. have ‘ Thou art 
My Son,’ which some authorities have in Mt. also ; and this form 
implies that the voice had a special meaning for the Messiah, 
and was not meant for John alone. And, as addressed to John, 
it tells him of the Messiahship, rather than of the Divinity of 
Jesus. Even John was hardly ready for a revelation of the 
unique relation in which the Messiah stood to the Godhead ; 
and we can hardly suppose that the Divinity of Christ, which was 
only gradually revealed towards the close of the Ministry, was at 
the outset made known to John at the beginning of it (Briggs, 
The Messiah of the Gospels, p. 77). 

There are three ways of taking the sentence: (1) This is My 
beloved Son, in whom I am well pleased ; (2) This is My Son, 
the Beloved, in whom I am well pleased ; (3) This is My Son, the 
Beloved in whom I am well pleased.? The chief point is whether 
‘the Beloved’ is a separate title, indicating the Messiah. In any 
case there seems to be a reference to the Son of God promised 
in Ps. ii. 7, where the Messiah quotes Jehovah as constituting 
His Son and giving Him the nations as His inheritance. 


1 In the Messianic hymn in the Testament of Levi, of which the opening 
words were quoted on Mt. ii. 2, there is this prophecy: ‘* The heavens shall 
be opened, And from the temple of glory shall come on him sanctification, 
With the Father’s voice as from Abraham to Isaac. And the glory of the 
Highest shall be uttered over him, And a spirit of understanding and 
sanctification shall rest upon him” (ZLew2 xviil. 6, 7). 

2J. Armitage Robinson, Zpheszans, p. 229, and Hastings’ DZ. ii. p. 
501, DCG., art. ‘ Voice’ ; Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 204; Wright, Synopsts, 
p- 9; Charles, Ascension of [satah, p. 3. 


IV.1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 35 


* This is’ is doubtless the true reading here; but the Old Latin a, with 
the Curetonian and Sinaitic Syriac and Irenwus, supports D in reading 
‘Thou art’ for ‘This is.’ All three Synoptists have This i is’ of the voice 
at the Transfiguration (xvii. 5). For other variations and additions here see 
Resch, eens, 2nd ed. pp. 36, 222. 

On the introductory words to ch, iii., "Ev δὲ ταῖς ἡμέραις ἐκείναις, 566 
Droosten in the Jour. of Th. St., Oct. 1904, p. 99; and comp, xi. 25, xii. I, 
xiii. I, xiv. I, xxii. 23. In ver. 3 read διά (δ BCD 33 157 700, Latt.), not 
ὑπό, before Ἡσαΐου ; ; and in ver. 8 read καρπὸν ἄξιον (NBCE etc. 565 700, 
Latt. Sah. Boh., Orig.), not καρποὺς ἀξίους. The insertion of πᾶσα before 
᾿Ιεροσόλυμα in ver. 5 (Lat-Vet. Aeth.) is interesting : comp. the πᾶσα in ii. 3. 

Among the expressions which are characteristic of Mt. are ἔνδυμα (4), 
Σαδδουκαῖοι (7), whom Mt. mentions far more often than any other Evangelist 
(once each in Mk. and Lk. and never in Jn.), γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (7), συνόέγειν 
(12), τότε (13), καὶ ἰδού (16, 17). Here for the first time we have the phrase 
which more than any other distinguishes this Gospel, ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν 
(2); see Dalman, 74e Words of Jesus, pp. 91 ff. Neither διακαθαρίζειν (12) 
nor διακωλύειν (14) occur elsewhere in the N.T. 


Iv. 1-11. The Temptation of the Messiah. 


It is the common experience of mankind that times of special 
spiritual endowment or exaltation are followed by occasions of 
special temptation. The Messiah is no exception. No sooner 
is He anointed with the Spirit for the work of the Ministry than 
He has to undergo a fierce conflict with the great personal power 
of evil. We have no right to assert that there had been no 
previous attacks ; and we know that there were subsequent attacks 
(xvi. 23; Lk. xxii. 28, 42-44). But this attack is of a special 
kind; it is an attempt to overthrow the Messiah at the very 
opening of His public career as the Saviour of the world, just 
as the Agony in the garden was caused by an attempt to over- 
throw Him when that career was near its awful close. And it 
is encountered under the guidance of the Spirit, as all three 
Evangelists point out. Jesus, who certainly from His Baptism 
onwards is fully conscious of His Messiahship, knows what 
awaits Him in the wilderness. He goes thither to meditate 
upon the work which His Father has given Him to do, and 
which must be carried out in accordance with the Father’s will. 
That work was ‘to destroy the works of the devil’: conflict with 
the evil one was of its very essence from beginning to end. And 
conflict involved the inexpressible torture of contact. Contact 
with moral evil is intense suffering to a pure soul. What must 
this have been in the case of Jesus? Yet He shares this most 
acute agony with His saints.! 

The temptation in which the Son of Man conquered is the 
counterpart of the temptation in which man first fell. As the 
descendant and representative of a fallen race, it is His mission 


? Pbre Didon, Jésus Christ, p. 214. Ad hoc pugnat Imperator, ut discant 
milites (Augustine). 


~ 


36 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [IvV. 1-11 


to vanquish in the sphere in which they have been vanquished ; 
and there is no postponement of the struggle. All three accounts 
make the conflict with Satan the first act of the Messiah after 
His consecration for His work. ‘ Zhen was Jesus led up by the 
Spirit’ (Mt.). ‘And straightway the Spirit urgeth Him forth’ 
(Mk.). ‘And Jesus, full of the Holy Spirit, returned from the 
Jordan, and was led in the Spirit’ (Lk.). Mk. and Lk. imply 
that the temptations lasted throughout the forty days. Mt. 
places the temptations towards the close of the time, when, after 
the long ecstatic fast, natural cravings were felt and Satan had 
a special opportunity. Lk. agrees in placing these particular 
temptations at the close. As in the case of the Baptist’s teaching 
(ili. 7-12 = Lk. iii. 7-17), Mt. and Lk. may here also have had 
similar, but independent sources of information, either oral or 
written.! 

The ultimate source of information must have been our Lord 
Himself, as the most rigorous criticism admits. His disciples 
would not have been likely to think that He could be tempted 
to evil; and, if they had supposed that He could, they would 
have imagined quite different temptations for Him, as various 
legends of the saints show.2 The form, therefore, in which the 
temptations are described, is probably our Lord’s, chosen by 
Him as the best means of conveying the essential facts to the 
minds of His followers.? It does not follow, because the tempta- 
tions are described separately, that they took place separately, 
one ceasing before the next began. Temptations may be simul- 
taneous or interlaced; and, in describing these three, Mt. and 
Lk. are not agreed about the order. Nor does it follow, because 
the sphere of the temptation changes, that the locality in which 
Christ was at the moment was changed. We need not suppose 
that the devil had control over our Lord’s person and took Him 
through the air from place to place: he directs His thoughts 

1 Mk, speaks of ‘Satan,’ where both Mt. and Lk. have ‘the devil.’? In 
Job i. 6 and Zech. iii. 1 the Septuagint has ὁ διάβολος where the Hebrew has 

atan. 

ΖΦ At the time when the story of the Temptation was first told and first 
written, no one possessed that degree of insight into the nature of our Lord’s 
mission and ministry which would have enabled him to invent it” (Sanday). 

3 “Tn this our Lord goes to what may seem to be great lengths in the use 
that He makes of the traditional machinery of Judaism. . . . The Power of 
Evil is represented in a personal bodily form, and the machinery or setting 
of the story is full of the marvellous—locomotion through the air to impossible 
positions and with impossible accompaniments, such as the literal view of all 
the kingdoms of the world ina moment of time. . . . Realism could hardly go 
further. And yet the meaning and essence of the Temptation is wholly spiritual ; 
it is the problem what is to be done with supernatural powers: shall the 
possessor of them use them for his own sustenance, or for his own aggrandise- 


ment?” (Sanday, Zhe Life of Christ in Recent Research, pp. 27, 28, 109, 
110). 


Iv. 1-11} PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 37 


to this or that. The change of scene is mental. From no 
high mountain could more than a small fraction of the world 
be seen; but the glory of all the kingdoms of the world could 
be suggested to the mind. Nor again do the words, ‘the tempter 
came and said to Him,’ imply that anything was seen by the 
eye or heard by the ear: any one of us might describe his own 
temptations in a similar way.1| What these words do imply is 
that the temptations came to Him from the outside; they were 
not the result, as many of our temptations are, of previous sin. 

In short, in making known His experiences in the wilderness, 
the Messiah acted somewhat as the Forerunner did in preparing 
the way for Him. He coupled his moral teaching with a 
picturesque symbolical act, such as Orientals love, in order to 
impress upon his hearers the necessity for a complete break 
with the past and a new start. The Messiah describes His 
temptations in a way which impressed upon the disciples the 
absolute antagonism between Himself and moral evil, the violence 
of the attacks, and the completeness of the victory. A dialogue 
between Himself and the prince of the world would be the 
simplest mode of producing this impression and rendering it 
permanent; and dialogue, like symbolical rites, was a favourite 
way with Orientals of conveying moral and spiritual instruction. 
There is no need to suppose that anything was audibly said on 
one side or the other. 

But it is rash to assert that ‘Satan’ is only a generic name 
for impersonal evil impulses.? Science has no objections to 
urge against the existence of personal powers of evil; indeed 
some psychological phenomena are held to be in favour of such 
an hypothesis. And the teaching of our Lord and the Apostles 
is quite clear on the subject. It is incredible, as Keim has 
pointed out, that all the passages in which He speaks of the evil 
one and of evil spirits are interpolations. “Jesus plainly desig- 
nated His contention with the empire of Satan as a personal 
one” ( Jesus of Nasara, Eng. tr., ii. pp. 315, 325). Only three 
hypotheses are possible. Either (1) He accommodated His lan- 
guage to a gross superstition, knowing it to be such; or (2) He 
shared this superstition, not knowing it to be such; or (3) the 
doctrine is not a superstition, but a truth which it concerns 
us to know. Even those who regard Him as merely the most 

4 Mt. is very fond of προσέρχεσθαι, and this is his first use of the verb, 
which occurs more often in this Gospel than in the rest of the N.T.: iv. 3, 
11, ¥. I, Vili. 2, 5, 19, 25, ix. 14, 20, 28, xiii. 10, 27, 36, etc. etc. In the 
true text αὐτῷ comes after εἶπεν, not after προσελθών. 

3 At the very outset two personal influences, other than that of Christ 
Himself, are clearly indicated: ‘Jesus was led up ὧν the Spirit (ὑπὸ rod 
ILvedparos) to be tempted dy the devil (ὑπὸ τοῦ διαβόλου),᾽ The repetition 
of the same preposition is probably not accidental, 


38 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW eae 1-11 


enlightened spiritual teacher which the world has ever seen might 
hesitate to assert that He was ignorant in such a matter, or that 
He encouraged error (xiii. 19, 39, xxv. 41), when He knew the 
truth. That the Jews had many superstitious beliefs about Satan 
and other evil spirits, some of them borrowed from other systems, 
is true enough ; but that is no evidence as to the non-existence 
of such beings. Excepting in the Epistle of Jude and 2 Peter, 
there is little trace of such beliefs in the New Testament, where 
the existence of the devil and demons is taken for granted. See 
Gore, Dissertations on Subjects connected with the Incarnation, 
pp. 23-27; Edersheim, Life of Jesus the Messiah, ii., App. xiii. ; 
Charles, Book of Enoch, pp. 52, 119; Book of Jubilees, p. \vi; 
Hastings, DCG., art. ‘Demon, .228., art. ‘Satan’; Neander, 
Life of Christ, § 47. 

The story of the Temptation has an important bearing on the 
question of miracles.1 We have seen that the source of the 
narrative must have been our Lord Himself, for no one at the 
time when the narrative was written down could have invented 
it. But the temptations assume that our Lord could work 
miracles. The whole narrative collapses, if He could not and 
did not do so. It is incredible that any one should have told 
such a story about himself to persons who knew that he had 
never done any mighty work. It is equally incredible that any 
one should invent such a story about a person who had never 
been known to do anything of the kind.? 

The writer of the Epistle to the Hebrews insists upon three 
points (ii. 18, iv. 15), and they suffice. 1. The temptations were 
real. 2. Jesus was absolutely victorious. 3. One reason for His 
subjecting Himself to such trials was that we might be sure of 
His sympathy in our temptations. The first point involves 
difficulty. How could evil be attractive to Him? and, 16 1 
was not attractive, where was the temptation? But many things 
which are morally wrong may seem to promise great advantages ; 
and the most saintly person, who never hesitates for an instant, 
may yet feel the attractiveness of the advantages. And the man 
who never yields is the man who has felt the full force of the 
temptation; for the man who yields has not waited for the 
tempter to do his worst. Hence the fallacy of supposing that, 


1 <The temptations are such as scarcely any one but Himself could have 
had experience of. They all turn on the conflict that arises when one who 
is conscious that he is possessed of supernatural power feels that there are 
occasions when it would not be right that he should exercise it” (Salmon, 
The Human Element, p. 64). 

2 Tt is strong confirmation of the miracles attributed to Jesus that none 
were attributed to the Baptist, either by himself or by his disciples, strongly 
as he impressed them (Neander, Life of Christ, § 38). See Sanday, Ozdtlznes 
of the Life of Christ, pp. 101 ff. 


{ 
" 
i 


Iv.1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 39 


in order to have complete sympathy with sinners, Jesus ought to 
have consented to sin. It is precisely because He resisted in 
all cases to the very end, that He knows, as no one else has ever 
known, how severe the strain of temptation can be. In one 
particular He has not shared, and could not share, our experience 
in reference to temptation. He has never felt shame or remorse 
for having sinned. But otherwise He has shared our experiences 
to the full. All our temptations are brought about through the 
instrumentality of pleasure or pain. In the wilderness our Lord 
withstood the seductiveness of effortless comfort and success and 
glory ; in Gethsemane He withstood the dread of suffering and 
failure and a shameful death. 

It is through the Messiahship, which has just been super- 
naturally confirmed to Him, that the attack is made. It is 
suggested to Him that He may exercise His Messianic power 
at once and thereby save Himself much suffering and trouble: 
and will not this be helping forward the very work that lies before 
Him? But, while the evil one urges the Messiahship, Jesus 
Himself seems to leave it out of consideration. To Satan’s plea, 
‘If Thou art the Son of God,’ He makes no direct reply. His 
answers are those of a dutiful child of God rather than those of 
the Divine Son. 

It is sometimes said that the first temptation is a temptation 
of the flesh.!_ But that would rather have been a temptation to 
eat greedily or to excess. Satan’s suggestion is a manifest refer- 
ence to the voice from heaven: ‘Hath God said, Thou art My 
Son, and yet said, Thou shalt not eat?’ (Comp. Gen. iii. 1.) 
Why should He starve in the wilderness, when, as God’s Son, 
He has power to turn stones into loaves? God fed His people 
by frequent miracles in the wilderness: may not His Son work 
one miracle to feed Himself? What would have become of 
God’s plans for Israel, if the people had died of starvation? 
What will become of the Messiah’s work, if He allows Himself to 
perish for want of food? In short, Jesus is to work a miracle in 
order to prove the truth of His conviction that He is the Son of 
God, a conviction that has just been confirmed by the voice of 
God Himself. 

Our Lord’s reply seems to show that He recognizes an 
allusion to the manna in the evil one’s suggestion. All His 
answers are from Deuteronomy, on which He may recently have 

1See Milton, Paradise Regained, 340-390, where all the dainties which 
Satan showed to our Lord are described, and our Lord rejects the ‘ pompous 
delicacies.” But this is quite erroneous. The temptation is directed to the 
mind, not to the senses. God allows Him to suffer hunger; then can He 
be God's Son? See Wright, Synofsis, p. 11, on our Lord's fasting. It is 
rash t say that because of the fasting and hunger ‘‘the temptation to turn 
the stone into a loaf must have come last” (Westminster N.7, p. 43). 


40 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [Iv. Lue 


been meditating.1 This quotation of Deut. viii. 3 has direct 
reference to the manna. It may be doubted whether the 
comment which is sometimes made upon it is its precise meaning 
here. No doubt it is true that man has more important needs 
than that of food, and that, unless his spiritual wants are supplied, 
he can hardly be said to live. But that does not fit the context. 
The point rather is, that food will not keep a man alive, unless 
God says that he is to live; and if God says that he is to live, 
he will live, whether he has food or not. Jesus knows that God 
wills that He should live, and He leaves all in God’s hands. He 
refuses to work a miracle which God has not willed, in order 
to effect what God has willed. To the insinuated doubt as 
to His being really the Son of God He makes no reply. He 
gives an answer which holds good for any human being who 
is a loyal believer in Providence; guast unus e multis loguitur 
(Bengel). 

Mt. and Lk. vary as to the order of the next two temptations, 
and it is idle to ask which order is more likely to be correct.” 
To Mt. it may have seemed that the offer of all the kingdoms 
of the world was the most severe temptation, and therefore 
appropriately comes last. Lk. may have thought that the Temple 
was a fitting scene for Satan’s last effort. Comp. xil. 39-42, 
where Mt. has Jonah, Ninevites, Queen of the South, while Lk. 
(xi. 29-32) has Jonah, Queen of the South, Ninevites. 

The devil once more insinuates the doubt about Christ’s 
being the Son of God, which seems to show that this second 
temptation is partly a repetition of the first. If He will not 
prove His Messiahship by working a miracle to save Himself 
from being starved to death, will He not let God prove it by 
working a miracle to save Him from being dashed to pieces? 
And this second temptation is not only thus linked on to the 
first; it also appears to prepare the way for the third. Like it, 
it is perhaps a suggestion that He should take an easy road to 
success. So prodigious a sign as that of falling unharmed from 
the top of the Temple would, even against their wills, convince 


1 The ‘spiritual setting forth of the Law” in Deuteronomy may have 
given Him a special interest in the book. ‘‘ When He declares the essence 
of the Law to inquirers, He invariably states it in the Deuteronomic form ” 
(ΘΟ ip. 270) 

2 The only reasonable form which such a question can take is, Which was 
the order in the source which both Mt. and Lk. used? Mt., as often, is 
likely to be nearer the original ; the temptation which he places last was not 
only the most severe, it was also to the deepest depth of sin. Jesus is not 
merely tempted to put the Divine Sonship to the test, but to renounce it and 
become the vassal of Satan. Harnack, Zhe Sayzngs of Jesus, p. 43. 

8 With ‘the holy city’ comp. xxvii. 53; Rev. xi. 2, xxi. 2, 10, xxii. 195 
Is. xlviii. 2, 11. 1; Dan. ix. 24; Tob. xiii. 9. Lk. substitutes ‘ Jerusalem’ ; 
so also the Gospel of the Hebrews, 


IV.1-11] PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 41 


both priests and people that He was the Messiah ; and then the 
greater part of His work would be accomplished. But this 
cannot be pressed, for there is no mention of spectators. 
Nevertheless, what is the point of mentioning the Temple, 
unless those who thronged its courts are to be understood ? 
Any precipice in the wilderness would have served for a 
temptation to presumptuous rushing into needless danger. But, 
in any case, there are these differences between the first 
temptation and the second. In the first, Jesus was to be freed 
by miracle from a peril which already existed, and He was to 
work the miracle Himself. In the second, He was to create a 
peril for Himself, and expect God to free Him from it by 
miracle. 

It is from this temptation that the proverbial saying, “The 
devil can cite Scripture for his purpose” (Aferchant of Venice, 
I. iii.) has arisen. ‘The citation is from Ps. xci. 11, 12. Mt. 
omits the whole of ‘to keep thee in all thy ways,’ and Lk. omits 
the last four words, which are not suitable to the temptation. 
But it is perhaps giving more meaning to the omission than 
is intended, to say that throwing oneself from a height is not 
going ‘in one’s ways,’ but out of them.! The graphic beauty of 
‘upon their hands’ or ‘palms’ (not ‘7m their hands,’ as AV.), 
implying great carefulness, should not be missed. Our Lord 
does not stay to expose the misapplication of Scripture, any more 
than to answer the doubt about His Messiahship. He once 
more gives a quotation from Deuteronomy, perfectly simple, and 
such as holds good for any human being. In reply to the first 
temptation, He had declared His trust in God; God would not 
let Him starve. The evil one then suggests that He should 
show His trust in God in a still stronger way. Our Lord replies 
that putting God to the test? is not trusting Him. He is willing 
to face peril of death, when God wills that He should do so, not 
before. He is commissioned to teach His people that He is the 
Messiah ; but by winning their hearts, not by forcing them to 
believe. He did not force the Jewish hierarchy to believe in 
His Resurrection by appearing to any of them, yet many of them 
eventually believed (Acts vi. 7). 


** He that complies against his will 
Is of his own opinion still.” 


1 Yet, in any case, “‘ under guise of an appeal to filial trust lies concealed 
a temptation to distrust” (E. D. Burton and Shailer Mathews, Constructive 
Studies in the Life of Christ, p. 59). But in His rebuke Christ raises no 
objection to the doctrine of Angelic ministry and protection, It is not there 
that the evil one’s estion is wrong. 

3 ΤῊς verb in the Septuagint of Deut. vi. 16 is a strong compound 
(ἐκπειράζειν) implying thorough testing, and both Mt. and Lk. reproduce it. 


42 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [Iv. 1-11 


The conviction that is to be permanent, and bear fruit in 
conduct, must be one in which the will and the reason can 
acquiesce with some measure of satisfaction. Man’s freedom is 
destroyed, if he is surprised into a belief by some stupendous 
phenomenon ; and when the first overwhelming impression has 
passed away, the reality of the phenomenon is likely to be 
questioned. Our Lord during His Ministry worked as God 
works in history. Man’s freedom is respected. He always 
refused to give a sign from heaven to His opponents. It was 
only to the most intimate of the Twelve that He granted the 
significant vision of the Transfiguration, and they were not to 
reveal it till the still greater sign of the Resurrection had been 
granted. ‘That sign was not allowed to His enemies. He might 
easily have confounded them by appearing and teaching in the 
Temple after His Crucifixion and burial. But they had Moses 
and the Prophets, and they would not have been persuaded of 
His Messiahship even by His Resurrection. His appearances 
were reserved for chosen witnesses, who with full freedom of 
reason and will accepted them (Acts x. 40, 41).! 

The third temptation is the most clearly symbolical of the 
three. As already pointed out, all the kingdoms of the world 
could not be seen at once from any place.? Moreover, a literal 
falling down and worshipping of Satan cannot be meant. The 
doubt about the Messiahship is not insinuated again: that He 
is the Messiah is now accepted as certain. The Messiah is to 
destroy the works of the devil, and at last become King of 
Israel and of the whole world. That means a long and painful 
contest, involving much suffering to the Messiah and His 
followers. Why not have Satan for an ally instead of an enemy? 
Then sovereignty over Israel and all the nations may be quickly 
won, without pain or trouble. With wealth, fashion, rank, 
intellect, intrigue, and force on His side, all backed by mighty 
works, success will be rapid and certain. A triumphant progress 
to supreme power, and such glory as neither Jew nor Gentile 
ever dreamed of, is offered to Him. In other words, it is 
suggested to Him that, by natural and supernatural means of 
unholy character, He can quickly establish Himself as far greater 
than Solomon, with the whole world for His empire. 

Once more our Lord gives a swift and simple answer from 
Deuteronomy (vi. 13), an answer that is absolutely decisive. He 
anticipates His own declaration, that it is impossible to serve 


1 Latham, Pastor Pastorunt, p. 143. 

2 Lk. omits the place, saying nothing about the ‘ exceeding high mountain.’ 
Comp. the Apocalypse of Baruch: ‘‘Go up therefore to the top of that 
mountain, and there will pass before thee all the regions of that land, and 
the figure of the inhabited world, and the top of the mountains, and the 
depth of the valleys, and the depths of the seas” (Ixxvi. 3), 


Iv. 1-1}} PREPARATION FOR THE MINISTRY 43 


two masters (vi. 24). The loyal servant of God can make no 
terms with God’s enemy. The evil one is dismissed, and Angels 
come to minister, 

With the ‘ Get thee hence, Satan’ (Ὕπαγε, Σατανᾶ) here should 
be compared the stern rebuke to Peter in similar words (xvi. 23).! 
In Peter’s plausible suggestion the evil one was again tempting 
the Messiah to abandon the path of duty and suffering and take 
a short and easy course to success. The rebuke to Peter is alsc 
in Mk, (viii. 33), but the dismissal of Satan here is not in Lk. 
That is no sufficient reason for believing that the words are not 
original here, but have been imported by Mt. from xvi. 23. On 
the contrary, we may believe that Christ had already told the 
disciples as much as they could understand respecting His own 
temptations when Peter was guilty of an attempt to lead the 
Messiah astray. Otherwise Peter could hardly have seen the 
meaning of the severe words which Christ used. Lk. quite 
naturally omits the dismissal of the tempter, because, according 
to his arrangement, there is another temptation still to come. 


In some texts (DE LMUIZ, Just. Tert.) the ‘behind Me’ (ὀπίσω μου) 
of xvi. 23 has been imported into this passage. In the quotation from Deut. 
vi. 13 φοβηθήσῃ has been changed to προσκυνήσεις owing to the preceding 
προσκυνήσῃς, and μόνῳ has been added after αὐτῷ to make the charge 
more emphatic. In the A text of the LXX the wording of Deut. vi. 13 
has been brought into harmony in both particulars with Mt. 


‘The devil leaveth Him’ (ἀφίησιν αὐτόν) means more than 
‘departed from Him’ (ἀπέστη dz’ αὐτοῦ, Lk.): it means ‘left 
Him alone, ceased for a time to trouble Him,’ or ‘let Him go, 
released Him.’ 

Lk. tells us that the departure of Satan was only ‘until a 
convenient season’ (ἄχρι καιροῦ). The evil one is defeated, but 
he is not destroyed, and ‘the power of darkness’ (Lk. xxii. 53) 
is again to do its worst before the final victory is won. Indeed, 
the temptation to adopt a selfish, spectacular, and secular 
Messiahship was again and again put before Him during His 
Ministry ( Westminster N.T. p. 46). The ministry of Angels 
here, which is in Mk. also, but not in Lk., perhaps means 
that the miracle which the Messiah refused to work without 
God's sanction now takes place with His sanction, and that the 
Angels either supply Him with food or with support which 
rendered food unnecessary.2, The Messiah returned to work 
that involved a severe strain upon His physical powers. His 

1 In xii. 26 Christ substitutes ‘Satan’ for the ‘ Beelzebul’ of the Pharisees. 
Elsewhere He speaks of him as ὁ διάβολος (xiii. 39, xxv. 41) and ὁ πονηρός 
(xiii. 19, 38), neither of which names is found in Mk. Nor does Mk. use 
ὁ πειράζων (Mt. iv. 3). 

3 For this meaning of διακονεῖν comp. xxv. 44; Lk. xxii. 27; Jn. xii, 2; 
Acts vi. 2. 


44 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [Iv. 1-11 


human character had been strengthened by triumphant resistance 
of prolonged temptations. His human experience had been 
increased respecting the possibilities of evil (Heb. v. 8) and the 
dangers which His mission would have to encounter. And we 
may believe that He would be supplied with all the physical 
strength that His humanity required for the work that lay before 
Him. 

Christ’s refusal to avail Himself of supernatural aid to avert 
the danger of perishing with hunger is parallel to His abstaining 
from asking for supernatural aid to avert the certainty of perish- 
ing on the Cross. He would not turn stones into bread, and He 
would not have legions of Angels (xxvi. 53), because in neither 
case was it His Father’s will that He should do so. He knew 
that He was the Father’s only Son, and He knew what His 
Father’s will was. Now that throughout the strain of the 
temptations the Father’s will has been absolutely triumphant, 
supernatural means of supplying physical needs are allowed 
Him. Angels minister to Him (comp. 1 Kings xix. 5-9), and 
He has strength for the work which lies before Him.} 

This is a foretaste and an earnest of the glory which is to be 
His hereafter. And it resembles that glory in being a return for 
what He had foregone in order to do that which His Father had 
decreed for Him. Satan had offered Him ‘all the kingdoms of 
the world and the glory of them.’ ‘The Prince of this world’ 
(Jn. xiv. 30) had placed the whole of his vast dominion 
and its resources at Christ’s disposal, if He would enter his 
service. ‘That offer had been decisively rejected and the 
proposer of it had been dismissed. And, in a few years, 
all the power and glory which the evil one had offered to Him, 
and ten thousand times more which it was not in his power to 
offer, had been bestowed upon Him by His Father, because He 
had refused the tempter’s conditions and had accepted suffering 
and shame and death (xxviii. 18). ‘The Stronger’ than Satan, 
instead of sharing power with him, deprived him of it (Lk. xi. 
21, 22); and ‘the Kingdom of the world became our Lord’s 
and His Anointed’s, and He shall reign for ever and ever’ 
{πον πὶ τεῦ: 

It is in the narrative of the Temptation that we have the first instances of 
our Lord’s quoting Scripture. In this Gospel He quotes thirteen of the 


1 In the description of the sixth heaven in the Testaments of the XII. 
Patriarchs we have a verbal parallel: ‘‘In it are the Archangels who 
minister and make propitiation to the Lord,” or (according to other texts) 
‘*the host of the Angels are ministering,” or ‘‘the Angels of the presence of 
the Lord who minister” (Zev iii. 5). With the narrative in Mk. i. 13, 14 
comp. ‘* The devil shall flee from you, and the wild beasts shall fear you, 
and the Angels shall cleave to you” (Waphéalz viii. 4). 


IV. 12-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 45 


Canonical Books of the O.T. and makes clear reference to two other Books ; 
and there are several possible references to O.T. passages. Deuteronomy, 
Psalms, and Isaiah are most frequently quoted, and we may believe that 
they were often in our Lord’s thoughts. In the following list the references 
are to the passages in Mt. in which the quotation occurs. Genesis (xix. 4, 5) ; 
Exodus (v. 21, 27, 33, 38, xix. 18, 19); but some of these might be referred 
to Deuteronomy : Leviticus (Vv. 43, xix. 19, xxii. 39); Numbers (v. 33); 
Deuteronomy (iv. 4, 7, 10, Vv. 31, Xxii. 37, xxiv. 31); Psalms (xxii. 44, 
xxiii. 39, xxvi. 64, xxvii. 46); Isaiah (xili. 14, 15, xv. 8, xxi. 13, xxiv. 7, 
10, 29, 31); Jeremiah (xxi. 13); Daniel (xxiv. 15, 21, 30, xxvii. 64); Hosea 
(ix. 13, xii. 7); Micah (x. 35, 36); Zechariah (xxiv. 30, xxvi. 31); Malachi 
(xi. 10). The references to 1 Samuel (xii. 4) and Jonah (xii. 39, 41) are 
clear ; and there may be one to 2 Kings (vi. 6), The absence of any certain 
quotation from the Sapiential Books is remarkable ; but comp. xvi. 27 with 
Prov. xxiv. 12, and xix. 26 with Job xlii. 2 ; also xii. 43 with the addition in 
the Septuagint to Prov. ix. 12. With Ecclesiasticus there are many parallels : 
¢.g. Vi. 7, Vi. 14, Vi. 20, and xix. 21 with Ecclus. vii. 14, xxviii. 2, xxix. 12; 
and vy. 33, 34 with Ecclus, xxiii. g-11. See also Ecclus. iv. 5, v. 13, Vii. 
35, ix. 8, x. 6, xix. 21, xxvii. 6, xxviii. 3-5, and Wisd. ii. 18, iii. 7, iv. 4, 
16, xvii. 21. 


IV. 12-XVIII. 35. THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE AND 
THE NEIGHBOURHOOD. 


This is the main portion of the Gospel. To the end 
of xiii. the scene is chiefly in Galilee; the scene of xiv.—xviii. 
is chiefly in or near Galilee. The sources are Mark, the 
Logia of Matthew, and some independent traditions, written 
or oral. 

The Galilean section is in three divisions. 1. Opening 
activities, ending with the Sermon on the Mount (iv. 12-vii. 29). 
2. Ten Acts of Messianic Sovereignty, ending in the charge to 
the Apostles (viii. 1-x. 42). 3. Many utterances of Messianic 
Wisdom, ending in numerous illustrations of teaching by 
parables (xi. 1-xiii. 58). The remaining section constitutes a 
fourth division, consisting of activities in or near Galilee, and 
ending in the discourses on offences and forgiveness (xiv.-xviii.). 
Hence chapters v.-vii., x., xiii. and xviii. are conclusions to 
definite divisions of the Gospel, and they consist almost entirely 
of discourses. 

The long Galilean section consists of nine subdivisions. 
We begin with an historical introduction, dating from John’s 
imprisonment, and placed in surroundings which are a fulfilment 
of prophecy (iv. 12-16). Then the Ministry begins with the 
call of the first disciples (17-22). After a preliminary statement 
about the Messiah’s teaching and work (23-25), we have copious 
illustrations, both of His teaching (v.—vii.), and also of His work 
(viii. 1-ix. 34). This is followed by the mission of the Twelve 
(ix. 35-xi. ἐν by illustrations of the opposition which His 


46 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [IV. 12-16 


ministry provoked and of His consequent isolation (xi. 2—xii. 50), 
and by illustrations of His public teaching by parables and His 
private interpretations of them (xiil. 1-52). Henceforward Mt. 
keeps closely to the order of Mk., and the prolonged Galilean 
section comes to an end with the tragic rejection of the Messiah 
by His own people at Nazareth (xiii. 53-58). The substance of 
all this must, in the last resort, be carried back to the testimony 
of eye-witnesses : see Klostermann on Mk. 1. τό. 


IV. 12-16. Lilfilment of Prophecy by the Messiah's Appearance 
in Galilee. 


It was ‘when He heard that John was delivered up’ by the 
Pharisees into the hands of Herod Antipas, that Jesus departed 
from the scene of John’s activity and of the Pharisees’ hostility, 
and withdrew once more to Galilee, where He made Capernaum, 
instead of His original home Nazareth (ii. 23), to be His head- 
quarters. The expression, ‘when He heard’ (ἀκούσας), is not 
in Mk., nor in Lk., who here arranges his material differently, 
but it is important, as illustrating a principle of our Lord’s 
action which emerges from the narrative of the Temptation. 
He does not work miracles where ordinary means suffice. It 
is not by supernatural knowledge, but by common report, that 
He learns the persecution of the Baptist by the Pharisees 
(comp. xiv. 13). In both places the insertion of ἀκούσας by Mt. 
is the more remarkable, because his tendency is to emphasize 
the supernatural powers of the Messiah. What specially 
interests him here, is the statement in Mk. i. 14, 21, that Christ 
not merely moved to these northern regions, but had Capernaum 
as the centre of His activity, in which fact he sees a fulfilment 
of prophecy. The fulfilment which he sees is partly geographical. 
He understands the ‘sea’ in Is. ix. 1, 2 to be the sea of Galilee ; 
and, on any hypothesis as to site,! Capernaum was on the Lake. 
Isaiah mentions Zebulon and Naphtali; and Capernaum was in 
the territory of these twotribes. But more important than these 
geographical coincidences is the fact that the Prophet speaks of 
‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ (Γαλιλαία τῶν ἐθνῶν),3 and also of ‘a 
great light’ that is to shine on the inhabitants of these darkened 
regions. ‘This, like the visit of the Magi, and perhaps the warn- 
ing uttered by the Baptist (iii. 9), is an intimation that the 
salvation brought by the Messiah to the Jews does not belong 
to them exclusively, but is to extend to the heathen. 

Mt. once more shows his indifference to chronology. He 


1See Sanday, Sacred Sites, pp. 36 ff., and Jour. of Th. St., Oct. 1903. 
2 Comp. Γαλιλαία ἀλλοφύλων (1 Mac. v. 15). 


Gti eer So we a ene 


IV. 12-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 47 


did not tell us how soon after the Birth the visit of the Magi took 
place, nor how long the retirement in Egypt lasted, nor how long 
after the return to Palestine the appearance of the Baptist and the 
Baptism of the Messiah took place. So here we are left in doubt 
whether the interval between the Temptation and the beginning 
of the Messiah’s Ministry in Galilee was one of days or of years. 
Just as the beginning of John’s preaching is given without any 
connexion with the settlement of the Holy Family at Nazareth, 
so the beginning of Christ’s preaching is given without any 
connexion with the Temptation. It is the news that John had 
been handed over to his enemies, not the victory of the Messiah 
over the evil one, which leads to the settlement at Capernaum 
as a centre for preaching. 

Mt. says that Jesus ‘wthdrew into Galilee’ (ἀνεχώρησεν), 
which does not mean that He vefurned thither after the Tempta- 
tion ;! and perhaps Mt. means that He retired to a part of the 
dominions of Antipas where He would be less likely to be 
molested by him than in the region where the Baptist had been 
working. What Mk. gives as a date, ‘after John was delivered 
up,’ Mt. gives as a motive, ‘when He heard that John was 
delivered up.’ A possible meaning is that, as the Baptist’s 
activity had been made to cease, there was all the more reason 
for the Messiah to begin to preach ; and the best centre for Him 
to choose for the purpose was the thick and mixed population 
on the west shore of the Lake. Yet it probably is not in order 
to hint at the excellence of the centre that the Evangelist 
reminds us that Capernaum was ‘by the sea,’ but in order to 
prepare for a detail in the prophecy which he is about to quote. 
‘The quotation agrees with neither the Hebrew nor the LXX, yet 
it appears to be taken from some Greek version (see Allen, ad /vc., 
and Swete, /ntroduction to the O.T. in Greek, p. 396) of Is. ix. τ. 
As often, Mt. gives quite a new meaning to the prophecy which 
he quotes. Isaiah is thinking of the devastation of Palestine by 
the Assyrians in the reign of Pekah, and he has a vision of 
deliverance from the ravagers by a ruler of the house of David. 
Then follows the great prophecy, ‘ Unto us a child is born,’ etc. 
In Mt. it is spiritual desolation (ix. 36) and a spiritual Deliverer 
(i. 21) that is meant.* 


1 ἀναχωρεῖν is frequent in Mt., very rare in Mk. Jn. and Acts, and is not 
found elsewhere in the N.T. Here Mk. (ἤλθεν) and Lk. (ὑπέστρεψεν) each 
use a different word. 

7s ¢ in the Testaments illustrates Mt.’s application of the prophecy 
to the Messiah's preaching of repentance: ‘‘ For true repentance after a god} 
sort (κατὰ θεόν, as 2 Cor. vii. 10) driveth away the darkness, and enlightencth 

and supplicth knowledge to the soul, and guideth the purpose to 
—? (Gad v. 7). ‘Galilee of the Gentiles’ may mean ‘ Heathenish 
ες. 


48 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 17-22 


IV. 17-22. The Messiah begins to preach and He calls 
Four Disciples. 


‘From that time Jesus began.’! The formula with which the 
Messiah’s preaching to the people is here introduced is repeated 
xvi. 21, and is perhaps intended to suggest a comparison between 
the two occasions. ‘There Jesus has to give a very different kind 
of teaching, not to the people, but to the Twelve: ‘From that 
time Jesus began’ to tell His disciples about His approaching 
Passion and Resurrection. 

The quotation of our Lord’s words here illustrates Mt.’s 
practice of abbreviating Mk. by omitting one half of his double 
statements. Mk. condenses the substance of Christ’s preaching 
thus: ‘ Zhe time ts fulfilled and the kingdom of God is at hand: 
repent ye, avd believe in the gospel’; a very unusual phrase, in 
which ‘ gospel’ means the ‘good tidings’ of the nearness of the 
Kingdom of God. As Mt. has already pointed out the fulfilment 
of prophecy, the first words are not needed; and the last words 
are implied in what precedes. 

The substance of the Messiah’s first preaching is the same as 
that of His Herald: He acts, so to speak, as His own Forerunner. 
And it is because He is as yet His own Herald, that, although 
He proclaims the approach of the Kingdom, He says nothing of 
the King. But it is with regal authority that He calls His first 
disciples.2 Without explanation, He gives what, even in form, 
is a command rather than an invitation: and this assumption of 
authority is not resented, but instantly obeyed. And His words 
imply that this time (contrast Jn. i. 35 ff.) it is no temporary 
invitation; they are to give up their calling as catchers of fish, 
and pursue a new calling as fishers of men.2 From what they 
had learnt of Him during the preliminary Ministry in Judea, 
about which Mt. and Mk. are silent, these fishermen knew to 
some extent what sort of work was in store for them, and under 
what kind of Master they would have to serve. All the patience, 


1The phrase ἀπὸ τότε is rare in the N.T. (Mt. iv. 17, xvi. 21, xxvi. 165 
Lk. xvi. 16) and in the LXX (Eccles. viii. 12; Ps. xcili. 2). The exact 
time cannot be determined. Colonel Mackinlay argues for A.D. 25 (Zhe 
Magi, p. 63). As he accepts A.D. 29 as the year of the Crucifixion, this 
involves a ministry of three years and a half, which has its difficulties. 

2 They had previously been disciples of the Baptist, and through him had 
come to know Jesus. When the Baptist was put in prison, Jesus calls them 
to become His disciples. It is the Fourth Gospel that enlightens us on this 
point (Jn. i. 35-42). Here, contrary to the usage of each, Mt. has the 
historic present (19), and Mk, the aorist (i. 17). 

3 Gould, on Mk. i. 17, points out that this is the first instance of parabolic 
language, so common in Christ’s teaching afterwards. The Baptist had used 
harvest-work (iii. 12), as Jesus Himself does later (ix. 37, 38), to signify the 
gathering in of souls, 


IV. 23-25] ΦΤΗΕ MINISTRY IN GALILEE 49 


perseverance, and courage which they had acquired in their 
uncertain and dangerous craft on the lake would be required, 
and they would have to sacrifice their home and their means of 
life. But neither pair of brothers hesitates, and each of the four 
has the happiness of taking a brother with him. Apparently, 
Simon and Andrew leave their net in the lake, without waiting 
to draw itin. Their readiness is even more marked than that of 
the sons of Zebedee, for they seem to have had no one to leave 
in charge of the nets (and boat?) which were their means of 
subsistence. Mt. is anxious to mark the readiness in both pairs 
of brothers. Very often he omits the ‘straightway’ (εὐθέως) 
which is so frequent in Mk. (iv. 1, viii. 4, 14, ix. 4, 7, xii. 4; 
comp. Mk. i. 12, 29, 43, ii. 8, 12, ili. 6, etc.). But here he retains 
it in both places, and in the second case he transfers it from the 
Messiah’s call to the disciples’ obedience; for he desires to 
emphasize the fact that at the outset the Messiah’s authority was 
at once loyally recognized. These followers are worthy subjects 
of the King. 

Mt. does not mean that Simon on this occasion received the name of Peter 
(18), but that Simon is the same disciple who was afterwards famous as Peter ; 
comp. x. 2. Of the Evangelists, John is the only one who gives the Aramaic 

i Cephas (i. 42), which S. Paul frequently uses in 1 Cor. and Gal. 
Whether the ἀμφίβληστρον which he and Andrew left differed from the 
σαγήνη in the ble (xiii. 47) is uncertain; neither word occurs else- 
where in the NT. In δεῦτε (6 times in Mt. and 6 elsewhere) and ἐκεῖθεν 
ΝΡ": in Mt. and 15 elsewhere) we have words of which Mt. seems to be 


The position which Mt. gives to the call of the four disciples 
indicates that a new stage has been quickly reached in the 
Messiah’s ministry. He is surrounded, not merely, as John was, 
by a multitude of casual and constantly changing hearers, but by 
a select number of constant followers. It was with these professed 
disciples that He went up and down Galilee, teaching in the 
synagogues and healing the sick. This was part of their training 
for taking up and continuing His work. 


IV. 23-25. Preliminary Summary of the Work. 


The Evangelist here leaves the narrative of Mk. to give an 
introductory epitome of the Ministry which he is about to illus- 
trate in detail. He begins the description with a simple ‘ And’ 
(xai), the first instance of this use in this Gospel. He tells us 
that, unlike the Forerunner, who required the people to come to 
him in the wilderness, the Messiah sought them; He ‘went 
about in all Galilee, teaching in their synagogues.’ Not many 
of these Galileans had been out to listen to John; none are 
mentioned in iii. 5. They are still a ‘ people sitting in darkness’ 


4 


50 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IV. 28-25 


(16). But the general result of the Messiah’s first appearance 
among them is in harmony with the happy beginning in calling 
the two pairs of brothers. There is no mention of any opposition. 
He brought to His fellow-countrymen much the same message 
as the Baptist (17, iii. 2); but it is probable that, whereas John 
emphasized the coming of judgment, Jesus dwelt rather upon the 
coming of deliverance and of joy. It is ‘the Gospel of the 
Kingdom’ which He preaches to them, a remarkable expression,! 
and peculiar to Mt. (23, ix. 35, xxiv. 14), for which Mk. has ‘the 
Gospel of God’ (i. 14). Both exhorted men to repent, and both 
announced that the Kingdom was at hand; but while John said 
most about the forsaking of sin, the Messiah said most about 
‘the good tidings.’ 

As a Healer the Messiah is everywhere popular, and His fame 
spreads widely, even into heathen territory. ‘All Syria’ and the 
country ‘beyond Jordan’ are excited about the reports of His 
work, and every kind of sickness is brought to Him to be cured. 
The Evangelist seems to delight in enlarging upon the vast 
amount of the healings and the great variety of them. He 
strings together, from several places in Mk. (i. 28, 32, 34, iii. 7, 8, 
v. 24), the different items of the Messiah’s success. Possibly 
Deut. vii. 15 is in his mind: ‘The Lord will take away from thee 
all sickness (πᾶσαν μαλακίαν), and He will put none of the evil 
diseases (πάσας νόσους) of Egypt upon thee.’2 Comp. the 
Testament of Joseph xvii. 7. But it was not the case that ‘the 
people’ tolerated the teaching for the sake of the cures. The 
preaching of the good news of the Kingdom came first, and the 
miracles were secondary. Many followed Him who neither 
required healing themselves nor brought sick friends to be 
healed. To all, whether sick or whole, the good tidings of the 
Kingdom proved attractive. Even the stern preaching of John 
had drawn multitudes into the wilderness, although he ‘did no 
sign’ (Jn, x. 41). Comp. ix. 35, where this verse is repeated 
almost verbatim, but without ‘among the people,’ which means 
among the Jews in Galilee. ‘The whole of Syria,’ with its 
heathen population (24), is in manifest contrast to Galilee with 
its Jewish population. 

It is notable that ‘the good tidings’ (τὸ εὐαγγέλιον) is first 
used in the N.T. of the preaching of Christ. John’s preaching 
might have been called ‘good tidings,’ but (with one indirect 
exception in Lk. ii. 18) it is not. Perhaps the note of judgment 

1JTt is here that the important word εὐαγγέλιον first appears in Mt. It 
originally meant the reward for good tidings (2 Sam. iv. 10), but afterwards 
always the good tidings themselves. See Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 102 ; 
Hastings’ DCG., art. ‘ Gospel.’ 

2In the N.T., Mt. alone uses μαλακία (iv. 23, ix. 35, x. 1). Of course 
‘all Syria’ is used in a loose sense. 


ΙΝ. 233-958) ΤΗῊΕ MINISTRY IN GALILEE st 


—the axe, the winnowing fan, the fire—was too strong for his 
message to win that gracious name. After the Messiah had 
encountered more and more of the hypocrisy and hostility of the 
hierarchy, His preaching became sterner even than John’s; but 
here, at the outset, there is no record of any word of condemna- 
tion or warning. The exhortation to repentance seems to have 
been so readily heard, and the invitation to believe the good 
tidings to have been so generally accepted, that He was able to 
do many mighty works. Even those who were brought from 
Syria were healed. But this concourse is represented as less 
continuous (aorists) than His own activity in Galilee (περιῆγεν). 

“It may be doubted whether we have an adequate notion of 
the immense number of Christ’s miracles. Those recorded are 
but a small proportion of those done. These early ones were 
illustrations of the nature of His Kingdom. They were His 
first gifts to His subjects.”?} 

“The healing ministry, judged by critical tests, stands on as 
firm historical ground as the best accredited parts of the teaching. 
In most of the reports the action of Jesus is so interwoven with 
unmistakable authentic words that the two elements cannot be 
separated. That the healing ministry was a great outstanding 
fact, is attested by the popularity of Jesus, and by the various 
theories which were invented to account for the remarkable 
phenomena.”? Harnack and Professor Gardner both admit that 
wonderful works of healing are too closely woven with the 
narrative to be torn from it: there is an irreducible minimum. 
Why should the Pharisees accuse Him of being the ally of 
Beelzebub, or Antipas suggest that He was the Baptist come to 
life again, or Celsus declare that He had brought charms back 
from Egypt, if there were no mighty works to be accounted for ? 
“The healing activity of Jesus is firmly established in the 
tradition” (O. Holtzmann). 

Many critics at the present day limit the mighty works to acts 
of healing, and limit the acts of healing to those “ which even at 
the present day physicians are able to effect by psychical 
methods,—as, more especially, cures of mental maladies” 
(Schmiedel). They were “acts of faith-healing on a mighty 
scale” (E. A. Abbott). “ Physicians tell us that people can be 
cured by suggestion; the term describes what has often been 
observed precisely in a quarter in which religious enthusiasm has 
been stirred” (O. Holtzmann). 

But do the records give any intimation that Jesus Himself 
was conscious that His power to do mighty works was confined 


1 A. Maclaren, ad ἦρε. 
3 Enc. Bibl. ii. 2445. See Sanday, Outlines of the Life of Christ, pp. 


105-113. 


52 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [IV. 23-25 


to works of healing? Did His disciples notice any such limi- 
tation? Did His enemies ever taunt Him with the fact that, 
while Moses and the Prophets did all kinds of miracles, He 
could do nothing but heal? No evidence tending in this 
direction can be produced. On the other hand, there is 
considerable evidence that He was believed to be able to do 
many other mighty works. 

Again, when we confine our attention to the acts of healing, 
do the records confirm the view that these acts were confined to 
curing neurotic patients by strong mental impressions?! Let us 
suppose that our Lord worked some striking cures by means of 
“moral therapeutics” ; which is not improbable, for He would 
not use supernatural power where ordinary means would suffice. 
Let us suppose that all His first miracles were of this character. 
The result, we are told, would be that He would get the reputa- 
tion of being able to perform all kinds of wonders, and in time 
they would be attributed to Him by tradition. Very possibly ; 
but there would be another result much more certain. In 
consequence of His first successes, multitudes of sick would 
be brought to Him who could not be cured by “psychical 
methods” or ‘‘suggestions,” or ‘moral therapeutics’; and 
therefore many would be sent away uncured. Where is the 
record of these mournful disappointments? It is suggested that 
there were no actual failures to heal, because He may have 
known by “a kind of instinct,” or by “experience and some 
kind of intuition,” what cases He could not cure; and therefore 
He did not attempt to cure such. Yet such a remarkable 
limitation of His healing activity must have made an impression 
which would affect traditions respecting Him. And is “ἃ kind 
of instinct” a scientific hypothesis? Even if we omit the Fourth 
Gospel, the reported cases are too numerous and too varied to 
be explained by faith-healing. It is incredible that all the sick 


laid in the streets were neurotic patients; and are leprosy, | 


dropsy, fever, withered hand, issue of blood, and blindness 
“susceptible of emotional cure”? Just so far as a disease is 
due to delusion or lack of faith, is it possible to expel it by 
faith-healing ; and the number of maladies which admit of such 
treatment is comparatively small.? 

Of course, the mighty works, whether of Christ or of His 
disciples, are not violations of law. Violations of law do not 

1 But ‘it would be rash to assert that this is the whole secret in any case” 
(Hastings’ DB., art. ‘ Miracles,’ ili. p. 390). 

2 See a valuable paper on ‘The Neurotic Theory of the Miracles of 
Healing,’ by R. J. Ryle, M.A., M.D., in the Azbbert Journal, Apr. 1907, 
pp. 572-586. The theory that many of the cures wrought by Christ, like 


many of those wrought at Lourdes, were only temporary, is entirely devoid of 
evidence. See Bruce, Zhe Training of the Twelve, p. 49. 


IV. 23-25] ΤῊΣ MINISTRY IN GALILEE 53 


occur in God’s ordered universe. But we do not yet know the 
laws by which these mighty works become possible. Still less do 
we know the laws of such an unique Personality as that of the 
Messiah; and we are not in a position to decide what was 
possible and what was impossible for Him in dealing with mind 
and matter. The evidence for the mighty works is not only 
strong but stringent; and the case for them stands, until the 
evidence can be explained upon any other hypothesis than that 
the substance of the evidence is true. 


The chief characteristics in ch. iv. are τότε (1, 5, 10, 11), ὕστερον (2), 
προσέρχεσθαι (3, 11), προσκυνεῖν (9, 10), καὶ ἰδού (11), ἀναχωρεῖν (12), ἵνα 
πληρωθῇ (14), λεγόμενος (18), δεῦτε (19), ἐκεῖθεν (21), προσφέρειν (24). The 
following are peculiar to Mt.: τὸ ῥηθέν (14), ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (17), τὸ 
εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας (23), μαλακία (23). Of the above, the following are 
absent from the parallel passages: προσέρχεσθαι (3, 11), τότε (5), καὶ ἰδού 
(11), ἀναχωρεῖν (12), λεγόμενος (18), ἐκεῖθεν (21). The paragraph 23-25 has 
no parallel. The word παραθαλάσσιος occurs nowhere else in the N.T. 


V. VIL Vil. Jilustrations of the Messiah’s Teaching. 
The Sermon on the Mount. 


The concluding verse of ch. iv. is given partly as the end of 
the summary of the Messiah’s Ministry, partly as an introduction 
to the Sermon. One result of His Ministry was that ‘great 
multitudes’ (ὄχλοι πολλοί: ! Mk. nearly always has ὄχλος πολλός) 
followed Him, coming from long distances. These multitudes 
constituted a large audience for His teaching ; and forthwith the 
Evangelist gives us abundant evidence of what the teaching was 
like. He evidently regards the teaching as of more importance 
than the healing. In the summary he mentions the teaching 
first; and here he gives us details about that before giving us 
details about the mighty works.2_ Mk. just mentions the astonish- 
ment produced by the teaching (i. 22, 23), and then passes to 
the details of healing; and it was probably the small amount of 
the Lord’s teaching contained in his Gospel, as compared with 
Με, which caused the latter to take the first place, although that 
of Mk. was first in the field. Indeed there is some reason for 
thinking that, at a very early period of its existence, the Gospel 
of Mk. was in danger of perishing altogether; as it is, its con- 
cluding portion has perished (Burkitt, Zhe Gospel History and its 
Transmission, p. 261); and the other document used by Mt. and 
Lk. (Q) has perished. See Stanton, pp. 76 f. 


11t is a favourite expression with Mt. (iv. 25, viii. 1, 18, xiii. 2, xv. 30, 
xix. 2). 

3 This is in accordance with Christ's own estimate of the comparative 
value of His words and His works: His words ought to suffice without the 
works, but He gives both (Jn. x. 38, xiv. 11). 


δ4 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [ν. 1 


Mt. again omits all indications of date; but it is obviously 
incorrect to say that he places the Sermon at the beginning of 
the Ministry. There are two proofs that he does not. First, 
‘the multitudes’ in v. 1 clearly refers to the ‘great multitudes’ 
in the previous verse; and these great multitudes did not gather 
until our Lord had been at work for some time and the report 
of Him had spread through Syria, Peraea, Judzea, etc. Secondly, 
the teaching in the Sermon is not elementary; it is evidently 
intended for those who had already received a good deal of 
instruction. 

The place at which the Sermon was delivered is almost as 
vague as the date: ‘He went up into the mountain.’ But no 
mountain has been mentioned. As in xiv. 23 and xv. 29, high 
ground in the neighbourhood of the lake is no doubt meant. 
The concourse was so great that the shore of the lake was no 
longer a convenient place for giving instruction, and our Lord 
goes up to one of the terraces on the hills above the lake. It is 
possible that there was some one spot to which He so often went 
up with His disciples that they commonly spoke of it as “7216 
mountain’ (τὸ ὄρος), and that this domestic name for a particular 
place survives in the Gospels (Mk. iii. 13, vi. 46; Lk. vi. 12; 
Jn. vi. 3, 15). The mention of this going up to the high ground 
above the lake lets us know that we are passing from the general 
sketch in iv. 23-25 to a definite occasion. At the same time 
there is some intimation that not all of it was delivered at one 
and the same time, for some of it is as clearly addressed to the 
Apostles (13-16) as other parts are to a larger circle of disciples ; 
and both classes of hearers are mentioned (v. 1, vil. 28). That 
our Lord sat down? would intimate that He was about to give 
instruction for some time (xiii. 2, xxvi. 55; Mk. xiii. 3). The 
solemn introduction, ‘opened His mouth and taught,” points 
in the same direction (comp. Acts vill. 35, x. 343 Job iii. τὸ: 
This is the first mention of ‘ His disciples,’ which in this Gospel 
commonly means disciples in the stricter sense. 

The critical questions connected with the form in which the 
Sermon has come down to us need not detain us long. They 
cannot be discussed without consideration of the similar, but 
much shorter, report of a discourse in Lk. (vi. 20-49); and 
ample materials for forming reasonable conclusions respecting 
them will be found in Bible Dictionaries, commentaries, and 

1Tt is strange that any ‘simple brethren’ should have supposed, as 
Jerome states, that the Mount of Olives is meant; and Tabor is not very 
probable. 

2 Sitting was the common attitude (Lk. iv. 20; Acts xvi. 13), standing 
the exception (Acts ii. 14, xiii. 16). Excitement or intense earnestness would 


make standing more natural at times. On the solemn introduction see Loisy, 
Le Discours sur la Montagne, p. 13. 


Vv. 1) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE $5 


separate treatises.' It is not of great importance to determine 
whether Mt. and Lk. give us divergent reports of one and the 
same discourse, which is the opinion held by most scholars ; or 
of two similar but different discourses, addressed to different 
audiences on different occasions, which is a tenable view, still 
advocated by some. Neither view is free from difficulty. That 
a sermon closely resembling these two reports was actually 
delivered by our Lord, need not be doubted for a moment: 
the contents are quite beyond the power of any Evangelist to 
invent, and the evidence for the Lord’s utterance of this teach- 
ing is satisfactory. But study of the two reports will convince 
us that neither of them is an exact reproduction of what was 
actually said. This is at once evident, if they are supposed to 
be reports of the same discourse; and this conclusion cannot 
be escaped by adopting the theory of two original discourses. 
(1) No one, however greatly impressed, would be likely to 
remember every word that had been said. (2) What was re- 
membered was not at once written down. (3) Either before or 
after it was written down it was translated from Aramaic into 
Greek ; and translations of both kinds probably existed, some 
made from Aramaic oral tradition, some from Aramaic docu- 
ments. We may believe that both Mt. and Lk. had the sermon 
in Greek in a written form, but by no means the same written 
form. (4) It is evident that, although both reports are probably 
much shorter than the original sermon or sermons, yet in some 
particulars they have been enlarged. Lk. to some extent, and 
Mt. to a still greater extent, has added to the original discourse 
some sayings, which, although they were certainly spoken by 
Christ, were not spoken in that particular connexion. ‘The 
most certain instance of this in Mt. is the Lord’s Prayer and its 
immediate context (vi. 7-15). But v. 25, 26, 31, 32, vii. 6-11, 
22, 23 may also be suspected of having been added by com- 
pilation, and this for two reasons: (a) because there is a want 
of connexion with the main subject ; and (4) because a good deal 
of this material is found in Lk. in quite a different setting ; e.g. 
v. 25, 26=Lk. xii. 58, 59, v. 32 =Lk. xvi. 18, vii. 7-11 =Lk. xi. 
9-13, Vii. 23=Lk. xiii. 27. Neither of these reasons is con- 
clusive; for the apparent want of connexion may be due to 
abbreviation ; and it is quite possible that our Lord may in 
some cases have included in a sermon what had been said on 
some special occasion, or may have repeated on some special 
occasion what had been said in a sermon, Nevertheless, the 


1See especially Hastings’ DZ. v., art. ‘Sermon on the Mount’; /nter- 
national Critical Comm. on 5, Matthew and on S. Luke; C. Gore, The 
Sermon on the Mount, 1896; Wase, Geschichte Jesu, § 55; DCG., art. 
* Sermon on the Mount.’ 


56 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [v.1 


two reasons together make a strong argument.! It is generally 
agreed that the Sermon on the Mount, as we have it in Mt., is 
to some extent the result of compilation. The theory, however, 
that it is entirely made up of short utterances cannot be sustained. 
Antecedently, the theory is not probable, and the facts do not 
bear it out. There is too much order in the report as a whole, 
and too much coherence in the parts,—especially when the less 
relevant sections are set aside as probable interpolations,—for 
the supposition that we have here nothing more than a number 
of pearls on a string. Could anything so orderly and coherent 
be constructed out of short extracts from the Epistles of St. Paul ? 
And what difficulty is there in the supposition that the main 
portion of the sermon is a substantially true report of a sustained 
discourse, addressed to a Galilean audience about the middle 
of the Galilean Ministry? And there is nothing improbable in 
the theory of two similar sermons. 


It is a matter of no moment whether the insertion of extraneous matter, 
such as the Lord’s Prayer, was made by the Evangelist, or had been previously 
made in the report which he used. It is of equally littke moment whether 
the immense abbreviation in Lk., if he reports the same sermon, is due to 
himself or his source. Mt. has 107 verses, Lk. 29; and of Lk.’s 29 all 
but six have a parallelin Mt. But 36 verses in Mt., though they have no 
parallels in Lk.’s report of the sermon, have parallels in other parts of Lk. 
And more than 40 verses in Mt. have no parallelsin Lk. Thus nearly half 
of the report in Mt. is peculiar to that Gospel. 

The parallels exhibit great variety in degrees of similarity of wording. 
Sometimes the two passages are almost verbatzm the same; e.g. Mt. vil. 
3-5=Lk. vi. 41-42. Sometimes the differences are very considerable, as 
in the parable with which each report ends. Even the Golden Rule is 
differently worded (Mt. vii. 12=Lk. vi. 31). And examination of the 
parallels will lead us to the conclusion that the report in Mt. is closer to 
the original sermon, if the same sermon is the basis of both reports. The 
much greater fulness of Mt.’s report points in the same direction. Jewish 
phrases, and allusions to the Old Testament, abound in Mt., but are absent 
from Lk. ; and it is much more likely that Lk., or the Gentile source which 
he used, omitted these topics and touches, as lacking interest for Gentile 
Christians, than that Mt. inserted them in order to please Jewish readers. 
Whether there was one sermon or two, our Lord’s audience would consist 
mainly of jews, and it is highly probable that the discourse delivered by Him 
had a great deal of the Jewish tone which pervades Mt.’s report. Critics, 
however, are not agreed as to the comparative accuracy of the two reports: 
some regard Lk.’s as nearer to the original sermon, but more prefer that of 
Mt. ‘‘In all these cases it is simply inconceivable that S. Matthew had 
before him, and has altered, the text presented in 5. Luke” (Harnack, Zhe 


Sayings of Jesus, Pp. 57). 


1 Perhaps we may add to them the improbability that our Lord would 
have given so large an amount of instruction all at once. Even the most 
advanced among His hearers could hardly take in so much of such lofty 
teaching at one and the same time. Augustine suggests that the circum- 
locution, ‘He opened His mouth and taught them,’ is perhaps meant by the 
Evangelist to indicate a/¢guanto longiorem futurum esse sermonem (De Serm. 
Don. i. i. 2). 


V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE $7 


There are two assumptions which are rather frequently made, 
and which are almost certainly untrue and misleading: (1) that 
each Evangelist, as a rule, tells’ us all that he knew, and that, 
therefore, nearly all that he omits was unknown to him; (2) that 
our Lord seldom repeated His sayings, and that, therefore, 
similar but different reports of His words in different Gospels 
must be referred to the same occasion. 

All these questions, interesting as they are, sink into in- 
significance as compared with the supreme importance of under- 
standing, and appropriating, the meaning of these reports of our 
Lord’s teaching, which have been preserved for the spiritual 
instruction of mankind. 

The general plan of the Sermon in both Gospels is the same. 
1. The Qualifications of those who can enter the Kingdom 
(v. 3-16=Lk. vi. 20-26); 2. The Duties of those who have 
entered the Kingdom (v. 17-vii. 12=Lk. vi. 27-45); 3. The 
Judgments which await the Members of the Kingdom (vii. 
13-27 = Lk. vi. 46-49). Invitation, requirement, warning ;—these 
are the three leading thoughts ; and, as Stier remarks, the course . 
of all preaching is herein reflected. 

In somewhat different words, we may say that the subject of 
the Sermon is Zhe /deal Christian Life, which is described in the 
Beatitudes (3-12) and the two metaphors which follow them 
(13-16). Then the characteristics of the Christian Life are dis- 
cussed, first in contrast to the Jewish Ideal (17-48), secondly in 
contrast to faulty Jewish practice (vi. 1-18), and finally in their 
own working (vi. 19-vii. 12), the climax being the statement of the 
Golden Rule (vii. 12). Lastly, there is an earnest exhortation 
to enter upon this Christian Life (vii. 13, 14), avoiding un- 
trustworthy guides (15-20) and profession without performance 
(21-23): the responsibility of rejecting this teaching will be 
great (24-27). The central portion of the discourse (vi. 19-vii. 
12) consists of three prohibitions and two commands. The 
prohibitions are (1) lay not up for yourselves treasures upon the 
earth ; (2) Judge not; and (3) Give not that which is holy to the 

᾿ The commands are (1) Pray to your Father in Heaven ; 
(2) Love your neighbour as yourself. 


V. 3-12. The Beatitudes, a Summary of the Christian Life. 


By ‘the Beatitudes’ is almost always meant the declarations 
of blessedness made by Christ at the beginning of the Sermon 
on the Mount,—blessedness which He attached to certain virtues, 
or conditions, or persons. And this blessedness is not some- 


1 Matthieu a penst tcrire un traité complet de la justice chrttienne (Loisy, 
Le Discours sur la Montagne, 2). 


58 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 8-12 


thing which the persons who are thus described /ee/; it is a 
property unerringly ascribed to them in the estimate of God. 
Thus it comes to pass that, while the Law is represented as 
having been given on Mount Sinai amidst thunders and 
threatenings, the JZagza Carta of the Gospel is introduced on 
‘the Mountain’ in Galilee with a series of new blessings. 

It is remarkable that there is wide difference of opinion as to 
the exact number of these beatitudes. They are differently 
reckoned as being seven, eight, nine, and even ten in number. 
In Lk. there is no question about the number: there we have 
four Beatitudes and four Woes! That is perhaps some indica- 
tion that the Sermon began with eight aphorisms of some kind, 
and is in favour of the common reckoning that Mt. gives us 
eight Beatitudes. But the question is merely one of arrange- 
ment ; no one need propose to strike out one or more of the 
sayings as unauthentic. From different points of view Mt. 
might wish to have seven (the sacred number), or eight (sym- 
bolical of completeness), or nine (three triplets), or ten (to equal 
. the Decalogue). All commentators agree that in verses 3-9 
we have seven Beatitudes summing up the ideal of a Christian 
character. Then comes a declaration that those who are 
persecuted for possessing this character are blessed; and it is 
probable that this is intended as a distinct Beatitude. It isa 
very blessed thing to possess the ideal character; but he who 
has to suffer for his righteousness is still more blessed. That 
this should be regarded as an eighth Beatitude is confirmed by 
the fact that it is included in the four in Lk. Lk. omits those 
respecting the meek, the merciful, the pure in heart, and the 
peacemakers, but he includes this one respecting the persecuted. 
Nevertheless, some refuse to recognize this as an eighth Beati- 
tude: (1) because the blessedness does not depend upon the 
internal conditions which are in the Christian’s own control, but 
upon the way in which other people treat him; and (2) because 
the result is a mere repetition of what has been already pro- 
mised,—‘ theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven.’ ? 

- There is much less to be said for regarding as a separate 
Beatitude, ‘Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you... 
for My sake’ (11). It is true that the word ‘Blessed’ is 
repeated; but what follows is a mere application of the pre- 


1 The wide difference as to the wording of the Beatitudes, and the inser- 
tion of the Woes, are among the chief arguments for the hypothesis that Lk. 
gives a report of a different sermon. See Stanton, pp. 106, 323, 328. 

2In the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs the cheerful endurance of 
persecution is enjoined, because anger is so disturbing to the soul. ‘‘ If ye 
suffer loss voluntarily or involuntarily, be not vexed, for from vexation ariseth 
wrath . . . and when the soul is continually disturbed, the Lord departeth 
from it, and Beliar ruleth over it” (Daz iv. 7). 


V. 3-12) THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 60 


ceding Beatitude to the disciples who are present, together with 
an amplification of the word ‘persecute.’ The psalm-like 
parallelism and rhythm of the preceding eight is here wanting, 
and we seem to be in the region of interpretation rather than of 
text. It is true that the equivalent of this saying is certainly 
counted as one of the four Beatitudes in Lk., but that is because 
he puts all the Beatitudes in the second person: ‘ Blessed are 
ye. Consequently, what is here given in two forms, one general, 
and one special (‘Blessed are they which are persecuted,’ and 
‘Blessed are ye when men shall persecute you’), is in Lk. given 
only in the latter, to harmonize with the other three, which are 
in the special or second person form. 

It is altogether unreasonable to regard ‘Rejoice and be 
exceeding glad . . . before you’ as a Beatitude in any sense. 
The word ‘blessed’ is not used, and the verse is only the 
complement of the one which precedes. Only when we put 
the two verses together do we get the right correspondence of 

a correspondence which is obscured by amplification. 
The foundation of the whole is, ‘ Blessed are ye when men shall 
persecute you for My sake, for great is your reward in heaven.’ 
The remainder, though probably original, is explanatory. There 
is, in short, no indication that Mt. intended to make ten Beatitudes. 
His report of the Sermon, as has been pointed out, is partly the 
result of compilation. Had he wished to give ten Beatitudes he 
might easily have included other sayings, similar in type, which 
he records elsewhere. ‘Blessed are your eyes, for they see; 
and your ears, for they hear’ (xiii. 16). ‘Blessed art thou, 
Simon Bar-jona ; for flesh and blood hath not revealed it unto 
thee, but My Father which is in heaven’ (xvi. 17). ‘ Blessed is 
he, whosoever shall find none occasion of stumbling in Me’ 
(xi. 6). ‘Blessed is that servant, whom the Lord when He 
cometh shall find watching’ (xxiv. 46). And there are others 
elsewhere, which may have been known to Mt. ‘Blessed are 
they that hear the word of God and keep it’ (Lk. xi. 28). 
‘Blessed are they that have not seen, and yet have believed’ 
(Jn. xx. 29). The frequency of such sayings among Christ’s 
utterances shows that, whereas warnings of judgment were 
prominent in John’s teaching, assurances of blessedness must 
have been very prominent in that of the Messiah. 

Here again perhaps we have a reason for the fact that the 
First Gospel was so much more popular than the Second. Mt. 
contains thirteen Beatitudes; in Mk. there are none. It is the 
Hebrew Gospel at the beginning of the N.T., and the Hebrew 
Apocalypse at the end of it, which are so rich in such things 
(Rev. i. 3, xiv. 13, xvi. 15, xix. 9, xx. 6, xxii. 7, 14). 

It is not irreverent to conjecture that our Lord may have 


60 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW  [V. 3-12 


had the beginning of the Book of Psalms in His mind, when He 
placed these Beatitudes, whether four or eight, at the beginning 
of the Sermon. ‘Blessed is the man that walketh not in the 
counsel of the wicked, but his delight is in the law of the Lord. 
He shall be like a tree planted by the streams of water, that 
bringeth forth its fruit in its season’ (Ps. i. 1-3). If so, then 
we have the counterpart of the Woes as well as of the Beati- 
tudes ; for the Psalm goes on: ‘ Not so are the wicked, not so; 
but are like the chaff which the wind driveth away. Therefore 
the wicked shall not stand in the judgment, nor sinners in the 
congregation of the righteous.’ This is perhaps some slight 
support to the authenticity of the Woes. 


The Acta Pauli et Thecle contains a large number of Beatitudes made up 
of scriptural language: e.g. Blessed are those who have kept their flesh pure, 
for they shall become temples of God. Blessed are the continent, for God 
will speak to them. Blessed are those who have bid farewell to this world, 
for they shall be well-pleasing to God. Blessed are those who have wives as 
not having them, for they shall become Angels of God. Blessed are those 
who have received the wisdom of Jesus Christ, for they shall be called sons of 
the Highest. See Resch, Agrapha, 2nd ed. 1906, pp. 272-4. 

There is yet another way of treating this portion of the Sermon: “‘ not as 
a string of eight Beatitudes, but as a single Beatitude with a sevenfold expan- 
sion. The significance of ‘poor in spirit? must be looked for in the seven 
applications into which it is expanded” (Moulton, Zhe Modern Reader's 
ible, p. 1692). This is attractive, and it is possible to regard some of the 
Beatitudes as expansions, or other sides of, the blessedness of being poor in 
spirit. But can ‘hungering and thirsting after righteousness,’ or being 
‘merciful,’ or ‘peacemakers,’ be said to be included in the idea of being 
‘poor in spirit’? It is better to regard ‘ Blessed are the poor in spirit’ as 
the leading Beatitude, marking at once the contrast between the standard to 
be observed in the Kingdom of heaven and the standard commonly observed 
in the world, rather than as one which virtually includes all the others. If 
the number seven is to be found in the Beatitudes, we must regard the first 
seven as distinct from all that follows, in that they are concerned with a 
man’s own character, while the rest is concerned with the way in which he is 
treated by others for being of this character. The RV. seems to favour the 
view that there are seven Beatitudes, whereas the WH. text indicates that 
there are nine. 

The attempt of Augustine (De Serm. Dont. in Mont. i.) to fit the seven 
Beatitudes to the seven gifts of the Spirit is very forced: ¢imor Domint, 
pauperes; pietas, mites; sapientia, lugentes; fortitudo, gui esurtunt et 
setiunt ; consilium, mdtsericordes ; tntellectus, mundo corde ; sctentia, pacéfict. 
See the Vulgate of Is. xi. 2, 3 and of Mt. v. 3-9. 


Adopting the common enumeration of eight Beatitudes, 
which is certainly as old as St. Ambrose (De Offic. i. 6), and 
which renders the comparison of them to a peal of “sweet bells” 
a happy one, we may notice these points respecting them. 

(1) There is no logical order in their arrangement, except 
that the one which depends, not on the Christian himself, but on 
the way he is treated by others, comes last. The first seven 
cannot be arranged in logical or chronological order. In some 


Vv. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE δι 


texts the second and third Beatitudes change places, and this 
arrangement is as early as the second century,' and Lk. places 
the fourth before the second. 

(2) They do not describe eight different classes of people, 
but eight different elements of excellence which may all be 
combined in one individual, who may acquire them in any order, 
or simultaneously. The poor in spirit are certain to be meek ; 
those who are merciful are likely to be peacemakers ; those who 
hunger and thirst after righteousness are likely to be pure in 
heart ; and those who are persecuted for righteousness’ sake will 
mourn with the mourning that is sure to be comforted. In 
other words, the Beatitudes are an analysis of perfect spiritual 
well-being, a summary of what is best in the felicity which is 
attainable by man. There is nothing like them, either in depth 
of insight or in definiteness of meaning, in either Jewish or 
Gentile philosophy. The word (εὐδαιμονία) by which Plato and 
Aristotle express the highest well-being of man does not occur in 
them or anywhere in the N.T.; and to Greek philosophers the 
sentences in which the Messiah sets before the world the 
elements of the highest well-being would have seemed like a 
series of paradoxes. They would have regarded the Propounder 
of them as θέσιν diadvAdrrwv,—adopting an extravagant position 
for the sake of provoking argument. And they are, as 8. 
Ambrose says, eight paradoxes; for, according to the Divine 
judgment, blessedness begins where man deems that misery 

1 See Montefiore, p. 485. 

We can hardly measure the surprise with which Christ’s 
audience listened to these Beatitudes. With some it would be 
the surprise of admiration and sympathy; here once more was 
the voice of One who taught with authority. With others it 
would be the surprise of incredulity ; this was indeed interesting 
doctrine, but it was not very likely to prove true. With others 
it would be the surprise of repugnance ; teaching so subversive 
of ordinary ideas respecting human felicity could not be accepted, 
and ought to be strenuously opposed. Among the conditions of 
blessedness, the privileges of the children of Abraham were not 
so much as mentioned. It was not the form of the Beatitudes 


1D, 33, Old Latin, Curetonian Syriac, Tertullian, Origen. The wish to 
mark the contrast between ‘the Kingdom of Heaven’ and ‘the earth’ may 
have helped to cause the transposition. 

Some Fathers, and some moderns, try to make a natural sequence in the 
Beatitudes, but take them in amy order, and the result would be as true as 
this: ** Poverty of spirit disposes to meckness, and meckness to mourning, 
and mourning or compunction to hungering after righteousness. Thirsting 
after righteousness disposes to mercy, mercy to purity of heart, purity of heart 
εν a ἐς εἶν peace; and the promotion of peace nat hatred 

ν 


62 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW _ [V. 8-12 


which they disliked; that was familiar to them from the Psalms 
({ 5. 22,- ΧΧΧΙ 1; 2; ΧΧΧΙΝ 125 ΧΙ 4, ἵχν. 4; ete.) -sbubmem 
different was the substance! ‘ Blessed is he that considereth the 
poor’ (Ps. xli. 1); this they could understand. But ‘ Blessed 
are the poor’ was strange doctrine indeed. 

The Beatitudes may be regarded as setting forth the subject 
of the whole Sermon. The Sermon treats of the character and 
conduct of members of the Messiah’s Kingdom, and at the 
outset we have the required character sketched in a few expressive 
touches. And the sketching of this character acts as a test: it 
turns back those who have no sympathy with such a character. 
It also acts as a corrective of false ideas about the Kingdom. 
The ideas of the multitude were for the most part vague ; and in 
their want of knowledge they degraded and materialized it. 
They thought of the Kingdom as a perpetual banquet. The ideas 
of the upper classes were more definite, but not more spiritual. 
They thought of it as a political revolution. Roman rule was to 
be overthrown, and a Jewish monarchy of great magnificence 
was to be restored. To both these conceptions of the Kingdom 
the Beatitudes were an emphatic contradiction.! 

It is probable that our Lord, speaking in Aramaic, said 
simply ‘Blessed are the poor.’ But, inasmuch as the Aramaic 
word need not mean, and was not intended to mean, those who 
are destitute of this world’s goods, the Greek translator was more 
than justified in rendering the single word ‘poor’ by ‘ poor in 
spirit’ (πτωχοὶ τῷ πνεύματι). Those who are literally poor are 
not necessarily poor in spirit; and those who are wealthy can 
nevertheless be poor in spirit.2_ Of course, being poor in spirit 
does not mean spiritual poverty, want of spiritual gifts. It 
means the character of those who feel their great needs (gui 
sentiunt se per se non habere justitiam) and their entire depend- 
ence upon God for the supply of all that they require (see below 
on the third Beatitude). 

Of all such it is true that ‘theirs is the Kingdom of Heaven,’ 
This is not the reward of their being poor in spirit, but the 
result of it. It is not so much a question of recompense as of 
consequence.? It explains wy the poor in spirit are blessed. 

1 Dieu est le Pere des esprits, et amour est la constitution du royaume 
éternel. On ne peut vaincre la terre gu au nom du ciel ; et le monde est aux 
pieds de celui qu'il ne peut pas sédutre (Amiel). 

2 «« A rich man, who is able to despise in himself whatsoever there is in 
him by which pride can be puffed up, is God’s poor man” (Augustine, quoted 
by Cornelius ἃ Lapide, ad /oc.). Such men ‘‘confess their poverty with as 
great humility of spirit, and pray for grace with as great earnestness, as 
beggars ask alms of the rich.” 

5. Comp. the blessing in the Testaments: καὶ of πτωχοὶ διὰ Κύριον 
πλουτισθήσονται, Kat of ἐν πείνῃ χορτασθήσονται, Kal οἱ ἐν ἀσθενείᾳ ἰσχύσουσιν 
( Judah xxv. 4; comp. Lk. vi. 20, 21). See Hort on Rev, i. 3. 


Vv. 3-12} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 63 


And so also in each of the Beatitudes ; the ‘for’ introduces a 
fact which justifies the paradoxical declaration. And the placing 
of the same fact as the explanation both of the first and of the 
last Beatitude (vv. 3, 10) indicates that the possession of the 
Kingdom sums up all the other results of the blessed dispositions 
that are mentioned. This is true even of ‘inheriting the earth’; 
for only when the rule of God has completely superseded and 
extinguished the prevalence, and even the presence of evil, will it 
be true that the meek are the universal inheritors. Of course, 
‘theirs is the Kingdom’ does not mean that the poor in spirit 
and the persecuted for righteousness’ sake are to ru/e:; the 
one ruler of the Kingdom is God. It means that they are 
worthy members of the Kingdom, and are counted among 
His subjects. In each Beatitude the emphasis is on the pro- 
noun ; ‘for ¢heirs is,’ ‘for they shall’ ;—precisely they among all 


The first Beatitude by itself, and still more the whole series, 
shows that the Sermon is addressed to those who have already 
made some progress as the followers of the Messiah. They have 
responded to the call to repentance, and have believed the good 
news of the nearness of the Kingdom. And this tells us that, 
although Mt. places this illustration of the Messiah’s teaching 
very early in his Gospel, yet ‘he Sermon cannot have been delivered 
at the beginning of the Galilean ministry, for the people would 
not have been ready for it. It implies a good deal of previous 
preaching, and we must consider that iv. 23-25 is a summary of 
months of work (see above). 

It is fanciful to say that “each Beatitude springs from the 
preceding”; but it was probably a wish to make the second 
spring from the first that caused some copyists to place ‘the 
meek ’ immediately after ‘the poor in spirit.’ It is permissible 
to say that the first Beatitude, like the last, is excellently placed, 
and that perhaps no other would have filled the position of 
leader so well, although much might be said for the fourth ; but 
we cannot reasonably deduce each from the one that immedi- 
ately precedes it. 

Just as ‘the poor’ does not mean all who are in actual 
poverty, so ‘those who mourn’ does not mean all who happen to 
be lamenting. Much will depend on the cause of the mourning 
and of the spirit of the mourners. Those who lament earthly 
losses are not sure of comfort. But those who mourn over their 
own shortcomings and sins, and those who lament the wicked- 
ness of the world! may count upon the Divine sympathy. 


“See 1 Cor. v. 2 and 2 Cor. xii. 21, where the same verb (πενθεῖν) is 
τ ᾿ St. Paul’s mourning over his own spiritual condition (Rom 
24 


64 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [V. 8-12 


Whatever hinders the realization of the Kingdom, and interferes 
with God’s complete sovereignty on earth, must be a cause of 
sorrow to all who desire to be His loyal subjects ; and sorrow of 
this kind is certain of relief. Nor is the relief to be understood 
exclusively of the day when ‘God shall wipe away all tears from 
their eyes.’ In this life also there is large comfort and com- 
pensation for mourners, if only they mourn because God’s will is 
not obeyed, and not because ‘He maketh not their own desire 
to grow’ (2 Sam. xxiii. 5).1 

We cannot be certain of the exact difference which ought to 
be drawn between the ‘poor in spirit’ and the ‘meek.’ But the 
latter (πραεῖς) are, as regards their name, more definitely religious 
and pious in their lowliness than the former. The two classes 
perhaps correspond to two Hebrew words, which are thus dis- 
tinguished. The prominent idea of a ‘poor’ man (Gz?) is that 
of one who is 2//-treated and therefore in need; but gradually 
there was added the idea that the ‘ poor’ man was 77ghteous, and 
perhaps ill-treated on account of his righteousness, and therefore 
having a special claim on God’s help. The word is used of 
Israel, as the ideally holy nation, suffering in the wilderness or 
from oppression. On the other hand, the ‘meek’ man (@zaw) 
is one who is humble-minded and bows at once to the will of 
God. So that, while ‘poor’ means first ‘humbled’ by man’s 
oppression and then ‘humble’ in the religious sense, ‘meek’ has 
a religious signification from the first, and therefore might be 
rendered ‘humble.’ For ‘meekness’ commonly means a dis- 
position towards men; but what is meant here and in Ps: xxxvii. 
11, from which this Beatitude is taken, is a disposition towards 
God, humility; comp: Ps: x. 17, xxi. 26, xxv.0, xxxiy. 2. But 
sharp distinctions of meaning in such words have a tendency to 
wear off, and we cannot always insist upon them. The ‘poor,’ 
‘meek,’ ‘humble,’ are often mentioned in the Psalms and 
Prophets as those who have a special claim upon the protection 
of God and of the good rulers who represent Him. ‘They are 
the ‘Israelites indeed,’ waiting patiently for the salvation of 
Israel, a ‘little flock,’ that often suffers from the persecution of 
the ungodly, but submits patiently to the will, and trusts always 
to the care, of the Lord who is their Shepherd (Ps. xxiii.).? 
When, through the growth of the. Kingdom, the ungodly are 
weeded out from the earth, the ‘meek’ are left to inherit it. 
Ps. xxxvil. 10, 11 shows that the patristic interpretation, ‘the 

1 Nevertheless there is a sense in which literal poverty and sorrow for 
worldly troubles may be regarded as blessings ; for suffering of this kind may 
lead men to desire the Kingdom of Heaven, and this desire may lead them to 
prepare themselves for it. 

*See Driver, art. ‘Poor’ in Hastings’ 228. iv.; Kirkpatrick on Ps. 
ix. 12; Hatch, Bzblecal Greek, pp. 73-77. 


Ἢ 


V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE δὲ 


earth’=the ‘ew earth’=‘heaven,’ ‘the land of the living,’ is 
not correct. 

The fourth Beatitude is much less paradoxical in form than 
the first three. It is easy to understand that those who eagerly 
desire what it is God’s will that they should possess are likely to 
be gratified. And it is remarkable that it is the hunger and 
thirst for righteousness, and not the possession of it, that is 
pronounced blessed. ‘To believe oneself to be in possession of 
righteousness, like the Pharisee in the parable, is fatal. To 
know oneself to be in want of it is not enough. One must feel 
the want of it, and have a passionate and persistent longing for 
it, in order to be accounted blessed by Christ ; for such a longing 
is sure to induce the person who feels it to strive hard for the 
object of his desire. Contentment, even in material things, 
ought not to extinguish efforts for improvement ; and we ought 
never to be content with our moral and spiritual condition. We 
must ever have a hunger and thirst for something better; and 
the greater progress that a man makes towards something better, 
the greater will be his dissatisfaction with the attainment, and 
the greater his desire for something more. In this case, he who 
eats will yet be hungry, and he who drinks will yet be thirsty ; 
for self-satisfaction becomes less and less possible, the more he 
gets of the ‘righteousness’ with which God is enriching him. 
It is the hungry soul that God fills with goodness, and it is the 
mouth that is opened wide for spiritual blessings that He has 
promised to make full! The whole purpose of the Sermon on 
the Mount is to teach mankind the nature of the righteousness 
which God wills, and thereby to excite a strong desire for it. 
But this Beatitude is not placed first, perhaps because, for the 
sake of arresting the attention, the three that are most startling 
were selected as the opening proclamations. For a similar 
reason, in order to make a lasting impression, a Beatitude as 
surprising as the first three is placed last and enlarged (10-12). 

The fifth Beatitude declares a law which holds good to a 
large extent even in the dealings of men with one another. On 
the whole, the merciful are mercifully treated, and those who 
show no mercy get none. But there are plenty of exceptions 
to this general principle. Yet, although this roughly equitable 
custom is perhaps included in the Beatitude, it is certainly not 
the chief part of its meaning. ‘The chief meaning is, that those 
who are merciful to their fellow-men will themselves find mercy 
at the Day of Judgment. And here God’s mercy is at once 
cause and effect. Because God is merciful to him, the righteous 


1 The other aspect of δικαιοσύνη, as justice between man and man, need 


not be excluded. The Christian must desire earnestly that justice may prevail 
everywhere, and it is a blessed thing to have a consuming zeal for it, 


- 


66 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW  [V. 8-12 


man is merciful to others (xviii. 21-35); and, because he is 
merciful, he wins God’s mercy. ‘Merciful’ (ἐλεήμων) is very 
frequent in the O.T., especially of God, in which connexion it 
is often joined with ‘gracious’ or ‘compassionate’ (οἰκτίρμων), 
particularly in the Psalms (Ixxxvi. 15, ciii. 8, cCxi. 4, Cxil. 4, 
exvi. 5, cxlv. 8). But in the N.T. it is found only here and 
Heb. ii. 17, where it is used of Christ proving Himself a merciful 
and faithful High Priest. On the other hand, the verb (ἐλεεῖν) 
is frequent in both O.T. and N.T. (ix. 27, xv. 22, xvil. 15, xviii. 
33, XX. 30, 31, etc.). It is in favour of including justice between 
man and man in the ‘righteousness’ which we are to hunger and 
thirst after that the Beatitude respecting the merciful follows 
immediately afterwards. However great our zeal for justice 
may be, it must not exclude the element of mercy. If justice 
is an attribute of God, so also is mercy; and those who have 
set the Divine excellence before them as an ideal to be longed 
for and striven after, must not forget that He is merciful as well 
as just. The Psalmist in describing the perfect man ascribes 
to him just the combination of mercy and justice (cxii. 4) which 
had previously been ascribed to Jehovah (cxi. 3, 4); and it is the 
man who fears such a God that is declared to be ‘ blessed’ (cxii. 1). 
Only men, and evil men, are said to be without mercy (ἀνελεήμονες) 
either in the. N.©. (Rom. 1. 31), on inthe, OF. (Prov v0.51 gs 
xil. 10, xxvil. 4; Job xix. 14). But Prov. xvii. 11 may be an 
exception, if the ‘pitiless messenger’ means a severe judgment 
inflicted on the sinner by God. But we limit ‘mercy’ too much 
when we make it synonymous with forgiveness. God bestows 
many mercies upon us besides those which have reference to 
our sins; and we must be ready to bestow many on others, 
quite independently of any injuries which we think that we have 
received from them. ‘Freely ye have received; freely give.’ 
While the first four Beatitudes set forth some of the main 
features in the love of God, this and the seventh inculcate 
the love of man. Yet it is remarkable that in none of them 
does the word ‘love’ appear. 

There is danger also of limiting unduly the meaning of the 
sixth Beatitude. It is very frequently regarded simply as the 
spiritual counterpart and enlargement of the seventh Command- 
ment. Purity of heart in that restricted sense is no doubt part 
of the meaning of this declaration; but it is not the whole of it. 
‘He that hath clean hands, and a pure heart (καθαρὸς τῇ καρδίᾳ, 
as here); who hath not lifted up his soul unto vanity (unreality, 
insincerity), and hath not sworn deceitfully’ (Ps. xxiv. 4), is the 
character to be understood here. Such a one is innocent of all 


1 ‘Tn heart’ here is exactly parallel to ‘in spirit’ in the first Beatitude ; 
the qualification indicates the region in which the special virtue is exercised, 


V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 67 


evil, not only in fact, but in intention ; his eye is single (vi. 22) ; 
he has, as Augustine says, cor simplex, a heart without folds ; 
he has no desire to offend either God or man. Cleanness of 
mind and sincerity of purpose are his characteristics: and such 
as he ‘may ascend into the mountain of Jehovah, and stand in 
His holy place’ (Ps. xxiv. 3). ‘And they shall see His face’ 
(Rev. xxii. 4), and ‘they shall be like Him, because they shall 
see Him even as He is’ (1 Jn. iii. 2). And, as Ireneus says, 
“the vision of God is productive of immortality” (Iv. xxxvili. 3). 
This ‘seeing God’ has its complete realization when the Kingdom 
comes in its completeness ; but even in this world it has much 
fulfilment. It is the pure-minded, single-hearted man who is 
best able to see God in His works, and to trace His counsels 
in the course of history. His mind, like a mirror that is kept 
clean and bright, is able to reflect the workings of Providence. 
And it is he who is most frequently conscious of the presence of 
God in himself. And, as to the final revelation, when ‘ God is 
all in all’ (1 Cor. xv. 28); if even another sovereign could speak 
with such enthusiasm of the happiness of those who stood 
continually in the presence of Solomon to hear his wisdom and 
see his glory (1 Kings x. 8), we may well believe that it ‘has not 
entered into the heart of man to conceive’ (1 Cor. 11. 9) what the 
blessedness will be. And there will be the progress of a con- 
tinual action and reaction. Those who are admitted to the 
Presence will see Him, because they are like Him, and they will 
become more like Him, because they see Him. Assimilation is 
the natural result of intimacy, and the intimacy must be begun 
in this world, if it is to bear fruit in the next. 

Clement of Alexandria (Strom. 11. xx. pp. 458, 9, ed. Potter) 
quotes a fine passage from Valentinus, showing that this Gnostic 
teacher used Mt. and delighted in the sixth Beatitude. “Now 
One is good (Mt. xix. 17), whose revelation through His Son was 
made openly, and through Him alone could the heart be made 
pure, every evil spirit being thrust out from the heart. For 
many spirits by dwelling in it do not allow it to be pure. And 
methinks the heart is treated very much the same as a common 
inn. For it has holes and gutters made in it, and is often filled 
with filth, through men staying in it who have nasty ways, and 
pay no respect to the place, because it belongs to some one else. 
So fares it with the heart also, so long as it meets with no 
respect, being impure and the home of many demons (Mt. xii. 
44, 45). But when the Father who alone is good (Mt. xix. 17) 
visits it, it is sanctified and beams with light. And so he is 
blessed who has such a heart, for he shall see God” (Mt. v. 8). 


Here it is clearly intimated that ‘the pure’ does not refer to external or 
ceremonial purifications, and is not limited to abstention from impure acts. 


68 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [Γ΄ 3-12 


The seventh Beatitude concludes the description of the ideal 
Christian ; the remaining one describes the way in which he is 
treated by the world. Here we return once more to the love ot 
his fellow-men, which is conspicuous in the ‘merciful’ of the 
fifth Beatitude, and which is part of the meaning of the ‘ pure in 
heart’ of the sixth.! As to the connexion between the sixth and 
the seventh, it is remarkable that we have the substance of them 
in close proximity, but in the reverse order, in Heb. xii. 14: 
‘ Follow after peace with all men, and the sanctification (ἁγιασμός) 
without which no man shall see the Lord.’ The order here is 
better. The sanctitication comes first, and that in two ways. 
The would-be peacemaker is hardly likely to be successful, 
unless his own life is clean and his motives pure. Again, 
sanctification must not be sacrificed, even in the sacred interests 
of peace (see Westcott, ad /oc.). The blessedness of peacemaking 
is intelligible even to those who never try to win it, though the 
office of peacemaker 15 often a thankless one. Hillel is reported 
to have said, ‘‘ Be ye of the disciples of Aaron, loving peace and 
pursuing peace.” In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, which 
was written not much, if at all, before this Gospel, there is a 
remarkable passage somewhat similar to the Beatitudes, 
especially as given in Lk. with parallel Woes. We have fourteen 
aphorisms, seven of which begin “Blessed is,’ and seven, 
“Cursed is”; and they are placed alternately. The sixth pair 
runs thus: ‘Blessed is he who establishes peace and love. 
Cursed is he who troubles those who are at peace” (1. 
Giese he 

The Messiah is the ‘Prince of Peace,’ and the Kingdom 
which He came to found is a Kingdom of peace. All peace- 
makers, therefore, are spreading His sovereignty and the rule of 
the Father; and they ‘shall be called sons of God,’ for ‘such 
they are’ (I Jn. iii. 1). Called so, not by the world, which 
perhaps will abuse them for uncalled-for interference, but by 
God Himself and by His Son. The Messiah will ‘give them 


1 Origen includes among the peacemakers those who reconcile what 
appears to be discordant in Scripture ; such a one πλῆθος εἰρήνης βλέπει ἐν 
ὅλαις ταῖς γραφαῖς, καὶ ταῖς δοκούσαις περιέχειν μάχην Kal ἐναντιώματα πρὸς 
ἀλλήλας (Ph2local, vi. 1). 

2 In an earlier chapter (xlii. 6-14) are nine Beatitudes, which (like these 
in Mt.) have no Woes or Curses; but there is little resemblance with these. 
‘Blessed is he who has love upon his lips, and tenderness in his heart” 
comes nearest. In the Talmud, Abaygeh says: ‘‘ Let him be affable and 
disposed to foster kindly feelings between all people; by so doing he will 
gain for himself the love both of the Creator and of His creatures.” Cornelius 
a Lapide tells of one Gaspar Barzaus of Goa, who was so successful as a 
peacemaker that the lawyers said that they would be starved, for he put a 
stop to all litigation. Did they persecute him, and thus make a connexion 
between the seventh Beatitude and the eighth? 


V. 3-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 69 


the right to become children of God’ (Jn. i. 12), and the 
Father will recognize them as such, because they have striven 
to make the contentious members of His family ‘dwell together 
in unity.’ And this special title of ‘sons of God’ indicates one 
of the ways in which peacemakers should work, viz. by trying to 
reconcile each of the contending parties to God before trying to 
reconcile them to one another. Men will often listen more 
readily to what is set before them as their duty to God than 
to what is urged upon them as due to those who have offended 
them. And if the peacemaker is to be successful in reconciling 
to God those who are at strife with one another, he must himself 
be reconciled to God, and thus be at peace with himself. Peace- 
making begins at home, in a man’s own heart, and thence 
spreads to the whole circle of God’s family. 

The first seven Beatitudes state the leading features of the 
ideal Christian character as it is in itself, and these features 
consist largely of the Christian’s attitude towards God and 
towards men. The ezg#tk and last Beatitude deals with men’s 
attitude towards the Christian. That attitude will commonly be 
one of hostility. ‘Because ye are not of the world, but I chose 
you out of the world, therefore the world hateth you’ (Jn. xv. 19). 
Men commonly dislike those whose principles differ greatly from 
their own, and especially those whose principles are much higher 
than their own. The righteous man is a standing reproach to 
those who are not righteous, and it is exasperating to be con- 
stantly reminded that one’s life is not what it ought to be. The 
true Christian is sure to be persecuted (by coldness, contempt, 
and ridicule, if not by actual ill-usage) ; and when he has been 
thus persecuted, this is another element of blessedness, in addition 
to the many elements which are the results of his beautiful 
character. Here then, as in the first three Beatitudes, we have a 
highly paradoxical statement.!_ Granted that it may be a happy 
thing to long for righteousness, to be merciful, single-hearted, and 
strivers after peace, to be told that it is a blessed thing to be 
persecuted for well-doing is as startling as to be told that it is a 
blessed thing to be meek and poor in spirit, and to mourn. But 
those who have accepted the first seven Beatitudes are not likely 
to take offence at the eighth. ‘Those who mourn over the lack 
of righteousness in themselves and in the world,—those who 
hunger and thirst for the righteousness that is thus lacking, will 
be ready to suffer persecution rather than let go, either the 

1 Christ purposely adopted paradoxical forms of expression, to arrest 
attention and to stimulate thought. Thus He says that to find one’s life is 
to lose it, and to lose one’s life for His sake is to find it (x. 39; Mk. viii. 35; 
Lk. xvii. 33; Jn. xii. 25). Self-seeking is self-destruction ; self-sacrifice is 
self-preservation. He uses vivid, popular language, calculated to remain in 
the memory. 


70 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [v. 3-12 


righteousness which /as been attained, or the hope of attaining 
more; and they may be assured that it is a blessed thing thus 
to suffer. They have given one more proof that they are worthy 
_ of admission to the Kingdom of Heaven. 

The fact that the explanation of the blessedness in the last 
Beatitude is the same as that in the first seems to intimate that 
the possession of the Kingdom sums up all the other results in 
the six intermediate Beatitudes.1 He who is admitted to the 
fulness of the Kingdom, is comforted, inherits the earth, is filled 
with righteousness, has obtained mercy, sees God, and is 
welcomed as a son of God: ‘I have called thee by thy name, 
thou art Mine’ (Is. xliii. 1). It is no objection to this that the 
result in the first and last Beatitudes is stated in the present 
tense, whereas the results in the intervening six are in the future. 
In the first and last Beatitude the ‘is’ was probably absent from 
the Aramaic original: ‘ Blessed the poor, for theirs the Kingdom’ ; 
‘Blessed the persecuted, for theirs the Kingdom.’ And seeing 
that the Kingdom is partly present and partly future, the differ- 
ence between ‘is’ and ‘shall be’ is not great. 

This last Beatitude does not mean that the ideal Christian 
character cannot be attained without persecution. That would 
make the wickedness of the unrighteous to be essential to the 
perfection of the righteous. It means that, where the Christian 
character provokes persecution (as, until God’s rule is fully 
established, it is sure to do), the Christian has an additional 
opportunity of proving his sonship and his fitness for the 
Kingdom. Jesus Himself suffered for righteousness’ sake, and 
those who take up His work, and would share His glory, must 
not expect, and will not ask for, any other experience (Jn. xv. 
18-20, xvii. 14, 15). It is persecution rather than prosperity 
that promotes the well-being and progress of the Church. See 
Cyprian, De Lapsis, 5-7; Eusebius, H. 2. vii. i. 7. 

The Beatitudes in Lk. are addressed to the disciples through- 
out: ‘Blessed are ye poor; are ye that weep,’ etc. Only to the 
disciples of Christ is actual poverty and sorrow of any kind sure 
to be a blessing: but all men are the better for being meek, 
merciful, and peacemakers. Here our Lord, having stated the 
eight Beatitudes in their universal and more spiritual form, 
passes on to apply the last Beatitude to the disciples, and to 
explain it more fully. ‘Blessed are ye when men shall reproach 

1 Octava tanquam ad caput redit; quia consummatum perfectumque 
ostendit, the complete and perfect man has been set forth (Aug. De Serm. 
Dom. 1. iv. 12). ‘*In these separated blessings there is an implicit summons 
to seek to complete the Christian character in all its aspects, to polish the 
diamond on all its sides, that so on every side it may be capable of reflecting 


that light of heaven which will on that side also fall upon it” (Trench, 
Exp. of the Serm, on the Mount, p. 181). 


V. 18-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 71 


you.’ ‘For My sake’ is essential; it is equivalent to ‘for 
righteousness’ sake’ in the preceding verse, and it belongs to 
‘reproach you’ and ‘persecute you,’ as well as to ‘say all manner 
of evil against you falsely.’ Here we have the form which 
religious persecution commonly takes at the present time. The 
cruelties of the arena and of the scaffold are in abeyance, but 
reviling clamour and slanderous statements are still frequent ; 
and those who suffer from them should remember these verses. 
They may rejoice, for they will share the reward of the Prophets 
and of Him who is greater than the Prophets.! 

From slightly different points of view the next four verses 
(13-16) might be grouped either with what precedes, as a con- 
tinuation of the statement of the qualifications of those who can 
enter the Kingdom, or with what follows, as an introduction to 
the duties of those who have entered the Kingdom. The former 
arrangement seems better; but in neither case is the connexion 
very close. We may suspect that some words of the original 
Sermon are omitted between verses 12 and 13, and again between 
16 and 17. In these four verses the metaphors of salt and of 
light are used to set forth certain necessary functions of the true 
disciple. Lk. gives the salt-metaphor in a different connexion 
(xiv. 34, 35); and, if the saying was uttered only once, his 
arrangement seems more probable than that of Mt. But the 
wording in Mt. may be nearer the original. 


V. 13-16. Zhe Christian Life as Salt and Light. 


“There is nothing more useful than salt and sunshine,” says 
Pliny (VV. 7. xxxi. 9, 45, 102). Salt gives savour to food and 
preserves from corruption. It makes food both more palatable 
and more wholesome. The disciple whose life 1s shaped accord- 
ing to the Beatitudes will make the Gospel both acceptable and 
useful. But selfish and apostate disciples are worse than useless. 
Many substances, when they become corrupt, are useful as 
manure. Savourless salt is not even of this much use; it 
cumbers the ground. ‘I saw large quantities of it literally 
thrown into the street, to be trodden under foot of men and 
beasts” (Thomson, Zand and Book, p. 381).2 Ministers that 


1“*When Jesus comforts them by reminding them that formerly the 
Prophets fared no better than they, we see clearly with what class of men He 
ranks Himself. He is now the Prophet of His people—a view in no sense 
at variance with His secret conviction that He is the Messiah” (O. Holtzmann). 
And as to the rejoicing, gaudium non solum affectus est, sed etiam officium 
Christian (Bengel). 

2 The fact, if it be a fact, that pure salt cannot lose its savour, need cause 
no difficulty. The salt in use in Palestine was not pure, and savourless salt 
means the salt in common use, with the sodium chloride washed out of it, 


2 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW  /[V. 18-16 


have lost the spirit of devotion will never rescue the world from 
corruption. Perhaps the connecting thought is, that Christians, 
like the Prophets who saved Israel from corruption, must be 
ready to suffer persecution. And in Jesus we have a Prophet 
who dares to tell the group of unknown persons around Him 
that they will be more than equal to Isaiah, Jeremiah, and Ezekiel ; 
they will be as ready as these Prophets were to suffer for pro- 
claiming the truth; and they will recall, not one nation, but 
many, from spiritual decay. But they must beware lest, instead 
of preserving others, they themselves become tainted with rotten- 
ness. The salt szws¢ be in close contact with that which it pre- 
serves ; and too often, while Christians raise the morality of the 
world, they allow their own morality to be lowered by the world. 

If we assume that the sayings about salt and light (13, 14) 
followed immediately after the sayings respecting the blessedness 
of being persecuted for Christ’s sake, especially in the case of the 
Apostles, then the connexion in thought will be: Great indeed is 
the blessedness, but great also is the responsibility. You can do 
an immense amount of good to others; but you can also do an 
immense amount of harm. You can win a great reward; but 
you can also incur a heavy retribution. In Lk. xiv. 34, 35 the 
saying about salt is addressed to the multitudes who flocked after 
Him as if desiring to become disciples, and He warns them to 
count the cost. In Mk. ix. 50 the saying is addressed to the 
disciples, as here. See Latham, Pastor Pastorum, p. 360. It 
is not probable that there is any special connexion between this 
saying and the fourth Beatitude. ‘Salt excites ¢A7rst; so the 
Apostles have excited a thirst for heavenly things.” This is not 
one of the good properties of salt, and if it lost this property, it 
would hardly be less useful. ‘The analogy is forced and fanciful. 
Comp. rather Col. iv. 6; and for ‘earth’ in the sense of the 
inhabitants of the earth, ‘Shall not the Judge of all the earth do 
right?’ (Gen. xvili. 25). It is obvious that there can be no 
thought here of salt as the cause of darrenness, an idea which is 
not rare in the ©.T. (Deut. sax. 235 Job xaux..6;5 ΠῈ1 ΧΗ Ὁ; 
Ezek. xlvii. 11; Zeph. 11. 9). Sowing a city with salt (Judg. 
ix. 45) may mean that the place was laid under a curse, salt 
being used in religious rites (Lev. 11. 13; Ezek. xlii. 24). 
‘Wherewith shall 2.6 earth be salted’ (k, Luther) is of course 
not the meaning. 

This leads to the second metaphor.! If the Christian must 


1 With the pair of metaphors compare the parables of the Mustard Seed 
and the Leaven (xiii. 31-33). Abbott suspects that Jn. viii. 12 alludes to 
Mt. v. 14, and is meant to be a correction of it. In Mt. Christ says, ‘ Ye are 
the light of the world,’ in Jn. He says, ‘7 am the Light of the world.’ 
Johannine Vocabulary, 1748. 


V. 13-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 73 


live in the world, in order to save it from moral decay, he must 
also live above it and aloof from it, like a light on a high place 
illuminating far and wide. By his own life he will show what 
true life is. In both metaphors the emphasis is on character ; 
on what men are rather than on what they accomplish. Good 
salt cannot help giving a wholesome savour. Unobscured light 
cannot help shining. So also the man whose character reflects 
the Beatitudes cannot help being a wholesome and illuminating 
influence. Such aman cannot and will not isolate himself: his 
goodness will be infectious. Christian character is not individual 
and selfish, but social and beneficent. To attend only to his 
own soul is to lose savour and to obscure light. The light must 
shine ‘before men’; which is not the same thing as shining ‘to 
be seen of men.’ Good influence is to be allowed free play ; not 
for self-glorification, but for the glory of God. And influence 
there will be, whether good or bad. Moreover, the world will 
measure the value of the Gospel by it. Men estimate the worth 
of Christianity, not by the Beatitudes, not by the Sermon on the 
Mount, but by the lives of the Christians whom they see and know. 

In both metaphors there may be a reference to the last 
Beatitude. It may be the fear of being laughed at and 
persecuted that causes the disciple to cease to work against the 
corruption of the world and to cease to make the Gospel 
palatable ; and it may be the same fear that causes him to hide 
the light of a Christian life and in the end to allow it to become 
extinguished. Thus human society loses what might have 
preserved and illuminated it, and it is left to decay in the dark. 
The saying is as old as S. Chrysostom, that there would be no 
more heathen, if Christians took care to be what they ought to 
be; or, as the same truth is sometimes expressed, if the Church 
were for one day what it ought to be, the world would be 
converted before nightfall. 

With the metaphor of the light is joined that of ‘a city set on 
a hill’; and we thus have a triplet of metaphors. But the third 
is not parallel to the other two, for it does not set forth a duty, 
but states a fact. It is the duty of disciples to become as salt 
and as light; but they cannot help being as a city on a hill. 
They may hide the goodness of their lives, or cease to have any 
goodness to exercise, but they cannot hide their lives. For 
good or for evil the life will be seen and will have influence. 
‘The bushel’ and “7216 lampstand’ mean such as are usually 
found in a house; comp. Mk. iv. 21, 22; Lk. xl. 33; and 
contrast Lk. viii. 16, 17. 


1 Excepting Mk. xi. 25, the expression ‘ your Father which is in heaven’ 
is peculiar to Mt. and characteristic. It perhaps originated in Jewish 
Christianity (Dalman, 74e Words of Jesus, pp. 184-194). 


74 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [vV. 17-48 


The Oxyrhynchus Logion vii. is little more than ver. 14 partly abbreviated 
and partly expanded, and the expansion may have been suggested by vii. 
24, 25. Λέγει ᾿Ιησοῦς, πόλις οἰκοδομημένη ἐπ’ ἄκρον ἔρους ὑψηλοῦ καὶ 
ἐστηριγμένη οὔτε πεσεῖν δύναται οὔτε κρυβῆναι. ‘Jesus saith, A city built 
upon the top οἵ ἃ high hill and stablished can neither fall nor be hid.” The 
reading ὠκοδομημένη for κειμένη (Mt. v. 14) is supported by Syr-Sin. and 
Syr-Cur., Tatian and Hilary (edificata) ; and οἰκοδομημένη without augment 
is found in some MSS. and inscriptions. Grenfell and Hunt, Λόγια ᾿Ιησοῦ, 
1897, p. 153; Lock and Sanday, Zwo Lectures on the ‘Sayings of Jesus,’ 


1897, p. 26. 


As in many other passages (111. 15, Vv. 12, Vi. 30, Vil. 12, 17, etc.) 
the ‘so’ (οὕτως) in ‘So let your light shine before men’ may 
refer to what precedes rather than to what follows. ‘There seems 
to be no example elsewhere of ovrws being used to anticipate 
ὅπως. The meaning probably is, ‘In the same way as a well- 
placed lamp lights every one in the house let your light shine 
before men, so that they may see your good works.’ But, what- 
ever the construction may be, it is evident that it is conduct 
that is insisted upon rather than preaching. No doubt ‘your 
good works’ will cover preaching (Jn. x. 32), but it is the life 
that is lived rather than the words that are spoken that Christ 
emphasizes. Example is the best kind of teaching. Comp. 


Jabs; 


Here for the first time Mt. uses the expression, which is so frequent in his 
Gospel, ‘the Father who is in heaven’ (ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς), and which 
occurs only once in Mk. (xi. 25). Comp. ‘the heavenly Father’ (ὁ πατὴρ ὁ 
οὐράνιος) which is frequent in Mt. (v. 48, vi. 14, 26, 32, xv. 13, xVill. 35, 
xxili. 9), and is found nowhere else. He often represents the Messiah as 
saying ‘ your Father’ (v.-16, 45, 48, vi. I, 14, 15, 26, etc.), ‘thy Father’ 
(vi. 4, 6, 18), and ‘My Father’ (vii. 21, x. 32, 33, xl. 27, etc.), but never 
‘Our Father.’ The Lord’s Prayer (vi. 9) is not one in which the Lord 
Himself joins. Even where Christ calls His disciples His brethren (xii. 49, 
50), He does not say ‘ Our Father,’ but ‘ My Father.’ 


V. 17-48. Zhe Christian Life contrasted with the Jewish Ideal. 


The general drift of this section is that the Christian ideal is 
immeasurably higher than the Jewish. It excludes all degrees 
of sin, even in thought and feeling, whereas the old ideal excluded 
only acts, and only those acts which were specified as prohibited 
by the Law. ‘This higher principle is illustrated in respect to 
murder (21-26), adultery (27-30), divorce (31, 32), oaths (33-37), 
retaliation (38-42), love of others (43-47), and is summed up as 
a law of perfection (48). 

But, while the general drift is clear, it is not always easy to 
reconcile the particular statements with one another, or with 
other portions of the Sermon. ‘That, however, need not perplex 
us. We have to remember that we have not got the exact words 


V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 75 


that Christ said, nor all the words that He said. We must also 
remember that it was often His method to make wide-reaching 
statements, and leave His hearers to find out the necessary 
limitations and qualifications by thought and _ experience. 
‘Ruskin has said that in teaching the principles of art he was 
never satisfied until he had contradicted himself several times. 
If verbal contradictions cannot be avoided in expounding 
principles of art, is it likely that they can be avoided in setting 
forth for all time and all nations the principles of morality and 
religion ? 

‘Think not (comp. iii. 9, x. 34) that I came to destroy the 
Law or the Prophets.’ Such an expression implies that He 
knew that there was danger of their thinking so, and possibly 
that some had actually said this of Him.!. The Pharisees would 
be sure to say it. He disregarded the oral tradition, which they 
held to be equal in authority to the written Law; and He inter- 
preted the written Law according to its spirit, and not, as they 
did, according to the rigid letter. He did not keep the weekly 
fasts, nor observe the elaborated distinctions between clean and 
unclean, and He consorted with outcasts and sinners. He 
neglected the traditional modes of teaching, and preached in a 
way of His own. Above all, He spoke as if He Himself were 
an authority, independent of the Law. Even some of His own 
followers may have been perplexed, and have thought that He 
proposed to supersede the Law. They might suppose “ that it 
was the purpose of His mission simply to break down restraints, 
to lift from men’s shoulders the duties which they felt as burdens. 
The law was full of commandments; the Prophets were full of 
rebukes and warnings. Might not the mild new Rabbi be 
welcomed as one come to break down the Law and the Pro- 
phets, and so lead the way to less exacting ways of life? This is 
the delusion which our Lord set Himself to crush. The gospel 
of the Kingdom was not a gospel of indulgence.”2 He was not 
a fanatical revolutionary, but a Divine Restorer and Reformer. 

This section of the Sermon is by some regarded as the theme 
of the whole discourse. But this is not probable: much of the 
Sermon has no direct relation to it. Lk., while giving so much 
of the same or of a similar sermon, omits this section altogether, 


1 This is further evidence that the Sermon could not have been delivered 
at the beginning of the ministry. 

2 Hort, Judazistic Christianity, p. 15. The ‘I came’ (ἦλθον) probably 
implies the pre-existence of the Messiah, as also in x. 34: compare παρεδόθη 
(xi. 27). ‘The Law and the Prophets’ is a Jewish expression for the 
Scriptures ; vii. 12, ΧΙ, 13, xxii. 40; Lk. xvi. 16: comp. Lk. xvi. 29, 31, 
xxiv. 44; Jn. i. 45. Christ here says ‘the Law ov the Prophets,’ because 
He might have upheld the one and rejected the other ; but He has not come 
to abolish either, 


γ6 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW _ [V. 17-48 


as of less interest for Gentiles. Could he have done so, had it 
been the main subject ? 

The first four verses (17-20) give the general principle of the 
Messiah’s relation to the Law: “not destruction, but fulfilment.” 
The remainder (21-48) give the illustrations. At the outset He 
implies that He is the Coming One (6 ἐρχόμενος) : ‘ Think not 
that I came’: and throughout He speaks with a calm assertion 
of supreme authority, which impresses readers now, as it im- 
pressed hearers then.! He is evidently conscious of possessing 
this supreme authority, and it manifests itself quite naturally, not 


in studied phrases, but as the spontaneous expression of His. 


habitual modes of thought. One who knew that He was the 
Messiah, and was conscious of His own absolute righteousness, 
would consistently, perhaps we may say, inevitably, speak in 
some such way as this.? Could any one else speak in this quiet 
majestic way of ‘fulfilling the Law,’ or side by side with the Law 
place His own declarations : ‘But Z say to yout.’ 

It is not obvious at first sight what Christ means by ‘ fulfill- 
ing (πληρῶσαι) the Law.’ He does not mean taking the written 
Law as it stands, and literally obeying it. That is what He con- 
demns, not as wrong, but as wholly inadequate. He means 
rather, starting with it as it stands, and bringing it on to 
completeness; working out the spirit of it; getting at the 
comprehensive principles which underlie the narrowness of the 
letter. These the Messiah sets forth as the essence of the 
revelation made by God through the Law and the Prophets. 
Through them He has revealed His will, and it is impossible 
that His Son should attempt to pull down or undo (καταλῦσαι) 
this revelation of the Father’s will, or that His will, in the small- 
est particular, should fail of fulfilment. Not until the whole of 
the Divine purpose has been accomplished (€ws ἂν πάντα 
γένηται), can the smallest expression of the Divine will be 
abolished. And he who prematurely relaxes the hold (λύσῃ) 
which one of these minor enactments has on the conscience, 
will be the worse for it. He will not be expelled from the 


1Tt was a rabbinical principle that some authority must confirm the 
dictum of every teacher, the authority either of some previous teacher or of 
the Torah interpreted according to rule. No teacher must base his teaching 
simply on his own authority: that Jesus did this was one of the grievances 
against Him (Herford, Chrestiantty 7x Talmud and Midrash, pp. 9, 151). 

2 See Steinbeck, Das gittliche Selbsbewusstsein Jesu nach dem Zeugniss 
der Synoptiker, Leipzig, 1908, p. 21. ‘‘ There are none of our Lord’s 
sayings which bear a stronger mark of genuineness than those in which He 
criticises and enlarges the Mosaic precepts” (Salmon, Human Element, 

e120): 
7 3 Here for the first time the solemn ‘Verily’ (’Aujv) is used in this 
Gospel. With the whole verse comp. Lk. xvi. 17, which is in quite a differ- 
ent connexion. ᾿Αμὴν λέγω occurs 30 times in Mt., 13 in Mk,, and 6 in Lk, 


V.17-48] ΤῊΕ MINISTRY IN GALILEE 77 


Kingdom, but his place in it will be less glorious and less secure ; 
for he is unable to appreciate the relation of small parts to the 
whole, and, although loyal to the whole, he has, in this particular, 
been weakening its authority.1 But there is a much worse error 
than undervaluing this or that detail of what makes for righteous- 
ness. There is the error of misconceiving and misinterpreting 
the very nature of righteousness. This was the error of the 
Scribes and Pharisees, and it is fatal; it excludes from the 
Kingdom. 

Our Lord is not here alluding to the hypocritical professions 
of the Scribes and Pharisees ; nor to their sophistical evasions of 
the Law. We are to think of them rather at their best ; as care- 
fully preserving in writing and in memory the words of the Law 
and of the oral tradition ; as scrupulously observing the exact 
letter of them; and as supposing that this punctiliousness 
is righteousness.2, Those who can suppose that by formal 
obedience to definite precepts they fulfil the will of God and 
do all that is required of them, do not know the barest elements 
of what is required for admission into the Kingdom. They 
know nothing of that inward holiness, the chief characteristics 
of which have just been set forth in the Beatitudes. They have 
been in closest contact with the expression of God’s will, and 
yet have never discovered, or wished to discover, the true mean- 
ing of the expression. It is not the Law or the Prophets that 
Jesus proposes to abolish, but the traditional misinterpretations 
of these authorities. ΤῸ destroy these misinterpretations is to 
open the way for the fulfilment of the Law and the Prophets ; 
and He thus substitutes free development of spiritual character 
for servile obedience to oppressive rules. 

The first illustration of the contrast between the Christian 
life and the Jewish ideal is taken from fhe sixth commandment 
(21-26). There are six illustrations in all, grouped in two 
triplets, which are marked off from one another by the ‘ Again’ 
(πάλιν) in ver. 33. Six times in succession does our Lord use the 
magisterial ‘But Z say to you’ in correction of what had been 
said to an earlier generation (22, 28, 32; 34, 39, 44). The 
first triplet refers to the Decalogue, the question of divorce 


1 We have here another of the remarkable parallels between Mt. and the 
Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs: Πᾶς és ἂν διδάσκει καλὰ καὶ πράττει, 
σύνθρονος ἔσται βασιλέων (Levi xiii. 9). See Charles, p. Ixxx. For λύειν in 
the sense of ‘do away with,’ ‘destroy,’ comp. ποιήσω λυθῆναι σκῆπτρον 
δεύτερον τῷ ᾿Ισραήλ, ‘cause a second tribe to be destroyed for Israel” 
-(Dan i. 9). 

2**The Scribes were the trained theologians of Israel, the Pharisees 
were the religious world of Israel. They therefore represented that element 
in the Jewish people with which a religious Teacher might have been ex- 
pected to be in harmony” (Burkitt, Zhe Gos, Hist. and its Transmtssion, 


Pp. 169). 


78 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 


being connected with the seventh commandment; the second 
triplet refers to other rules which are prescribed in the 
Pentateuch. 

‘Ye have heard that it was said’ (21, 27, 33, 38, 43);} not, 
‘Ye have seen that it was written.’ Christ is addressing an 
illiterate crowd, most of whom can neither read nor write; 
consequently their knowledge of the Law comes from public 
instruction in the synagogues, where the letter of the Law 
was faithfully read, but the spirit of it frequently missed or 
obscured. It was quite right that whoever committed murder 
should be liable to prosecution; but they ought to have been 
taught more than this. The command, ‘Thou shalt not kill,’ 
is based on the principle, ‘Thou shalt not hate,’ and that 
again on the principle, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as 
thyself’ (Lev. xix. 18, 34). ‘Whosoever hateth his brother 
is a murderer’ (1 Jn. iii. 15), and in the eye of the Divine 
justice he is liable to the same punishment as the actual 
murderer ;? where ‘brother’ is to be understood in its widest 
sense as any member of God’s family (vil. 3-5, xvill. 15, 21). 
Christ leaves the old commandment standing; but on His own 
authority He adds what is equally binding with it and ought 
to be regarded as included in the spirit of it. 


‘Without cause’ (εἰκῆ, szze causa) after ‘angry with his brother’ may be 
an explanatory gloss which has found its way into a large number of the 
less authoritative texts. It is as old as the second century (D, Lat-Vet. Syrr. 
Iren.) ; but it is more likely that it was inserted as an obvious qualification 
than that it was omitted (8 B and MSS. known to Jerome and Augustine, Vulg. 
Aeth., Justin. Tert.) because it was superfluous. The qualification ‘ falsely’ 
(ψευδόμενοι) in v. 11 might seem to justify a similar qualification here. The 
evidence of Irenzeus is not certain. The Latin translator or a scribe may 
have inserted the szvze caussa 1V. xiii. I, for, when Irenzeus comments on 
the text § 3, he omits the qualification. 


The remainder of ver. 22 is difficult. It is possible that the 
report has been so condensed as to be obscure, or that sayings 
which belong to a different occasion have been inserted here. 
The paragraph makes excellent sense if the sayings about 
‘Raca’ and ‘Fool’ are omitted, and also if vv. 25, 26 are 
omitted. Taking the text of ver. 22 as it stands, we have a 
climax in the penalties: those of the local court, those of the 


1 This introductory formula occurs five times; so that Mt. has a group of 
five side by side with two groups of three. When He is addressing the 
educated classes, Pharisees or Scribes or Sadducees, Christ says, ‘ Have ye 
not vead?’ (xii. 3, 5, xix. 4, xxi. 16, 42, xxii. 31). 

2 We find this idea in the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs: “ Fearing lest 
he should offend the Lord, he willeth not to do wrong to any man, even in 
thought”; οὐ θέλει τὸ καθόλου οὐδὲ ἕως ἐννοίας ἀδικῆσαι ἄνθρωπον (Gad v. 5). 
And again: “.ΑΔ5 love would quicken even the dead, so hatred would slay 
the living” (Gad iv. 6). Odzum est tra inveterata, 


SS eee 


Se ee————e 


i 


V. 17-48} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 79 


supreme court at Jerusalem (the Sanhedrin), and those of God’s 
final judgment. We assume that there must be a similar climax 
in the offences, which may be expressed thus: unexpressed 
hatred, expressed contempt, and expressed abuse. But it is 
by no means certain that ‘Thou fool’ (μωρέ) is a stronger term 
of abuse than ‘ Raca’: it may bea translation of it. Our Lord 
Himself uses the word of the foolish builder (vii. 26) and of 
the foolish virgins (xxv. 2, 3, 8), and S. Paul uses its equivalent 
in rebuking the Galatians (iii. 1). The very word ‘Raca’ is a 
puzzle as regards orthography, derivation, and use (see Nestle in 
DCG.). But, assuming that ‘Thou fool’ is much worse than 
‘Raca,’ it cannot be meant that while the Sanhedrin can impose 
sufficient penalty for the one, nothing less than the fires of 
Gehenna would suffice for the other! It is doubtful whether 
tthe Sanhedrin would regard the utterance of ‘ Raca’ as an 
offence at all; and certainly our Lord is not condemning all 
use of the word ‘fool,’ or all use of strong language (xii. 34, 39, 
XVi. 23, Xxilil. 13-35). 

Possibly Christ is ironically imitating the casuistical distinc- 
tions drawn by the Rabbis, and at the same time is teaching 
that all degrees of hatred and contempt, whether expressed or 
not, are sinful and are liable to (ἔνοχος) condemnation by man 
and by God, who alone can judge of the feeling and malevolent 
intention in the heart.2 This point is enforced by a striking 
illustration. To obey the law of love is better than sacrifice ; 
therefore postpone sacrifice rather than postpone reconciliation. 
Suppose that a man with feelings of enmity in his heart has 
actually come to the altar in the Temple with his offering. He 
must not offer it until he has got rid of his bad feelings and 
done his best to make peace with the brother who, rightly or 
wrongly, is offended with him. One who hates the children 
of God will not be accepted as His child by the heavenly 
Father, and it is peacemakers who have a special right to be 
regarded as His children (9). See Tert. De Orat. 11. 


1 €Gehenna,’ as a place of future punishment, is frequent in Mt. (v. 22, 
29, 30, x. 28, xviii. 9, xxiii. 15, 33); in Mk. thrice; in Lk., Jas., 2 Pet. 
once each. For the important difference between ‘Gehenna’ and ‘ Hades,’ 
the obliteration of which is one of the most serious defects in the AV., see 
commentaries, DB. and DCG. 

2 Our Lord cannot mean that one who cherishes angry feelings may be 
rosecuted: who is to know? He means that to cherish such feelings is a 
ind of murder, and merits the like penalty. Occédisti guem odisti. 

8 The change of construction from ἔνοχος τῇ x. and τῷ σ. to els τὴν γ. τ. π. 
should be noted. It seems to indicate the difference between liable to prose- 
cution and liable to punishment ; between being brought before the court and 
being cast z¢o Gehenna. 

The pres. subj. ἐὰν προσφέρῃς means, ‘if thou art in the act of offering’ ; 
comp. xv. 14. See Cambridge Biblical Essays, p. 189. 


80 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW _ [|V. 17-48 


We may suspect that the next two verses (25, 26) are no 
part of the original Sermon, but come from some other context 
(Lk. xii. 58). They seem to introduce a new and not wholly 
harmonious thought. The previous case teaches a man to be 
reconciled to his fellow-man, because God forbids enmity. 
This case teaches a man to be reconciled to his adversary, 
because the adversary may put him in prison. But, taking the 
verses as they are placed here, we may say that they contain a 
parable to enforce one of the lessons of the previous illustration, 
viz. that no time must be lost. The connecting link is ‘ quickly’ 
(ταχύ). Enmity is hateful to God, therefore put an end to it 
without delay. The offended brother may die, or you may die; 
and if you both live, the enmity is likely to become more intense ; 
in either case there is a disastrous conclusion. Possibly the 
parable means no more than this: one cannot be too speedy 
in putting an end to bad feeling. And if so, that is the whole 
moral of the parable. But if ‘the adversary’ is to be interpreted, 
it would seem to mean, not the offended brother, but the 
offended Father, who has become hostile to one who persists 
in violating His law of love! The solemn warning, ‘till thou 
have paid the last farthing,’ points to this ; for any interpretation 
of it as referring to earthly penalties and the evils of litigation 
seems to be inadequate. ‘Thus interpreted the parable says, 
“Beware of persisting in conduct which must expose you to the 
action of Him who is at once Prosecutor, Witness, Judge, and 
the Executor of the judgment.” Nothing is said about the 
possibility or impossibility of payment being made in prison: 
see On iil. 12. The wise and right thing to do is to be recon- 
ciled before being prosecuted. The passage is highly meta- 
phorical, and metaphors must not be pressed. 

The second illustration of the contrast between the Christian 
life and the Jewish ideal is taken from ¢he seventh commandment 
(27-30).2. This commandment, especially when supplemented 
by the tenth, protected the sanctity of marriage and the peace 
of married life. But the Messiah, while confirming this, again 
sets His own standard of purity beside the old one, and intimates 
that His standard is the true spirit of the old commandments. 
To abstain from even wishing to possess one’s neighbour’s wife 
is far from being enough. To lust after her, or any woman, is 


1 The born are to die, and the dead to revive, and the living to be 
judged ; that it may be known that He is the Discerner, and He the Judge, 
and He the Witness, and He the Adversary, and that He is about to judge 
with whom there is no iniquity, nor forgetfulness, nor respect of persons’ 
(Pirge Aboth, iv. 31). 

2 We have here another parallel (see on v. 19) with the Testaments of 
the XII. Patriarchs : Ὃ ἔχων διάνοιαν καθαρὰν ἐν ἀγάπῃ οὐχ ὁρᾷ γυναῖκα els 
πορνείαν (Benj. viii. 2 8). See Charles, p. Ixxix. 


Vv. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 81 


a breach of the commandment. Not only is social purity 
binding on both the married and the unmarried, whether male 
or female, but purity of heart (8) is absolutely indispensable 
for admission to the Kingdom. So indispensable is it, that no 
sacrifice ought to be regarded as too great, if it is the only 
means of securing the necessary cleanness of thought and will. 
On the analogy of the right hand, the right eye was regarded 
as the better of the two (1 Sam. xi. 2; Zech. xi. 17), and the 
right hand and eye are among the most valuable members 
that could be sacrificed without causing death; they therefore 
signify what is most precious. Like the passage about the 
adversary (25, 26), these verses (29, 30) are highly figurative, 
and we must once more be cautious about drawing inferences 
from metaphors. The actual sacrifice of eye or hand would do 
little towards securing purity; and it is not safe to argue from 
what is said here to the belief that there must be physical 
pains in Gehenna. The ‘eye’ and ‘hand’ are figurative, 
and therefore the ‘whole body’ is figurative. See notes on 
xviii. 8, 9. 

The third illustration of the superiority of the Christian ideal 
to the Jewish is taken from the question of divorce (31, 32). 
As being a subject connected with the preceding illustration it 
comes not inappropriately here, but we may doubt whether it 
was part of the original Sermon. The substance of it, partly in 
the same words, is found again xix. 3-9; but in neither place 
does it, according to the existing texts, show that Christ’s teaching 
about divorce was superior to that of the stricter Jewish teachers. 
There is grave reason for doubting whether Christ, either in the 
Sermon or elsewhere, ever taught that divorce is allowable when 
the wife has committed adultery. That πορνεία here and xix. 9 
means adultery (Hos. ii. 5; Amos vii. 17) is clear from the 
context. According to the earliest evidence (Mk. x. 1-12), 
which is confirmed by Lk. xvi. 18, Christ declared that Moses 
allowed divorce as a concession to a low condition of society. 
But there was an earlier marriage law, of Divine authority, 
according to which the marriage tie was indissoluble. ‘To this 
Divine law men ought to return. Teaching such as this is 
entirely in harmony with the teaching about murder (21-24) and 
about adultery (27, 28), and is above the level of the best Jewish 
teaching. But what is given here (31, 32) and in xix. 9 is wot 
above that level. The stricter Rabbis taught that the ‘unseemly 
thing’ (ἄσχημον zpaypa—impudicum negotium, Tertullian) which 


1 These verses have no parallel in Lk. ‘‘It seems to me probable that 
Luke the Physician preferred to leave out the metaphor of amputation” 
(Burkitt, Zhe Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 159). But Lk, also 
omits the paragraphs about murder and swearing. 


6 


82 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 


justified divorce (Deut. xxiv. 1) was adultery: and, according 
to Mt., Christ said the same thing. Nothing short of adultery 
justified divorce, but adultery did justify it. It is very improbable 
that Christ did teach this. If we want His true teaching we must 
go to Mk. and Lk., according to whom He declared the indis- 
solubility of the marriage bond. He told His disciples that the 
remarriage of either partner, while the other is living, is adultery. 

But it is a violent hypothesis to assume (in the face of all 
external evidence) that ‘except on account of fornication’ is a 
later interpolation by early scribes (Wright, Syzopsis of the Gospels 
in Greek, p. 99). If the interpolation had not already been made 
in the Jewish-Christian authority which Mt. used, then we must 
attribute the interpolation to the Evangelist himself. It is clear 
from other cases that he treated his authorities with freedom, and 
he may have felt confident that Christ, while forbidding divorce 
on any other ground, did not mean to forbid it in the case of 
adultery.2 Yet, even on the Evangelist’s authority, we can 
hardly believe that our Lord, after setting aside the Mosaic 
τ enactment as an accommodation to low morality, should Himself 
have sanctioned what it allowed. Mark would have no motive 
for omitting the exception, if Christ had made it; but there 
would be an obvious motive for a Jewish-Christian to insert it, 
as meant, though not reported. 

The fourth illustration is on the subject of oaths (33-37); and 
it is more like the passage on divorce than those on murder and 
adultery. In the cases of murder and adultery Christ interprets 
the Law, and shows how much more ground it covers than 
the Rabbis supposed. In the cases of divorce and oaths Christ 
simply opposes Jewish tradition. The Law said that promises 
to Jehovah, whether oaths or not, must be kept: a man ‘must 
do according to all that goeth forth from his mouth’ (Num. 
xxx. 2; see Gray, ad doc.; also Barton on Eccles. v. 4). The Jews 
held that only oaths need be kept, and not all of them; only 
certain forms of swearing were binding. Christ says that such 
distinctions are iniquitous; all oaths.are binding. But no oaths 
ought to be used, because a man’s word ought to be enough. 
Oaths and other strong statements have come into use, because 


1 Augustine’s view is this: soléus fornicationts causa licet uxorem adul- 
teram dimittere, sed ἐμ vivente non licet alteram ducere; but he is not 
satisfied with any solution of the difficult question. Yet he would use Mk. 
and Lk. toexplain Mt. Quod subobscure apud Mattheum positum est, ex- 
positum est apud alios, sicut legitur apud Marcum et apud Lucam. Tertullian 
is very decided for this view (4dv. Mare. iv. 34). 

2 See Allen, ad. /oc., and art. on ‘ Divorce’ in Hastings’ DCG., Driver on 
Deut. xxiv. 1 and ‘ Marriage’ in Hastings’ D&. ; Edersheim, Life and Times, 
ii. pp. 331 ff. ; Luckock, Azstory of Marriage; Watkins, Holy Matrimony ; 
Loisy, Le Déscours sur La Montagne, pp. 56-61; Wright, Sywopszs, 99. 


Υ. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 83 


men are so often liars; but it is a grievous error to suppose that 
a lie is not sinful, unless it is sworn to. The Jew went beyond 
even this, and held that perjury was not sinful, unless the oath 
was taken in a particular form (xxili. 16-22). False swearing 
was specially common among the Jews of the Dispersion engaged 
in trade (Martial, xi. 94); and hence the charge given by S. 
James (v. 12), in a passage which strongly resembles this. So 
great had the evil become that the Talmud raises the question 
whether ‘Yes’ and ‘No’ are not as binding as oaths: and it 
decides that they are, if they are repeated, as here. Christ does 
not say that anything stronger than ‘ Yea, yea’ is sinful, but that 
it is, or comes, of what is evil,! viz. the prevalence of untruthful- 
ness. In the Kingdom God’s rule prevails, and all speak the 
truth: oaths would be a senseless profanity. In this world, 
while falsehood remains so common, specially solemn statements 
may sometimes be necessary, and therefore are permissible. God 
Himself had at times recognized this necessity (Lk. i. 73; Acts 
ii. 30; Heb. iii. 11, 18, iv. 3, vi. 13-18, vil. 20, 21); and so 
did Jesus, when He responded to the adjuration of the high 
priest (xxvi. 63). Moreover, He frequently strengthened His 
utterances with ‘ Verily I say unto you’; and Origen remarks 
that Christ’s ᾿Αμήν was an oath. It would seem from passages 
in Philo and from the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (xlix. 1) 
that teaching similar to what we have here was not uncommon 
among the Jews. The latter passage runs: “‘ For I swear to you, 
my children, but I will not swear by a single oath, neither by 
heaven, nor by earth, nor by any other creature which God made. 
God said: There is no swearing in Me, nor injustice, but truth. 
If there is no truth in men, let them swear by a word, Yea, yea, 
or Nay, nay. But I swear to you, Yea, yea.” Passages from 
Philo are quoted by Charles, ad /oc. But it is not probable that 
Christ meant absolutely to forbid all swearing for any purpose 
whatever. It is provided for in the Law. It is expressly com- 
manded, ‘Thou shalt swear by His Name’ (Deut. vi. 13, x. 20). 
To swear by idols representing Jehovah (Am. viii. 14) or by 
Baal (Jer. xii. 16) is wrong ; but to swear truthfully in the Name 
of Jehovah brings a blessing (Jer. iv. 2, xii. 16). Indeed, ‘every 
one that sweareth by Him shall be commended’ or ‘shall glory’ 
(Ps. Ixiii. 11). Christ would not forbid this. 

Jewish casuists sometimes taught that it was oaths in which 
the Divine Name, or some portion of it, was mentioned that were 
binding ; other oaths were less stringent or not binding at all; 
and the oaths which Christ takes as examples here are such as 


1 Ts of the evil ove’ (RV.) makes good sense, but is less probable. Some 
who adopt the neuter = ee the ‘ evil’ as meaning that an oath implies that 
one is not bound to speak the truth unless one swears to one’s statement, 


δ4 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 


do not name God. These were, therefore, just such oaths as 
many Jews took and broke without scruple. This light taking 
of oaths, even when there is no false swearing, Christ absolutely 
forbids.1_ ‘Thus, as in the previous cases, He confirms the letter 
of the Law, but explains and expands the spirit of it. The Law 
said, ‘Ye shall not swear by My Name falsely’ (Lev. xix. 12), 
and Christ points out that the way to avoid false swearing is to 
be content with simple affirmations and negations. He cannot 
be admitted to the Kingdom in which truth reigns who holds 
that he need not speak truth, unless he confirms his word with 
an oath. The absence of an oath in no way lessens the obliga- 
tion to speak the truth. 


It is an interesting question whether S. James (v. 12) has not preserved 
our Lord’s words more accurately than Mt. does here. ‘But let your Yea 
be Yea, and your Nay, Nay’ (ἤτω δὲ ὑμῶν τὸ vai val, καὶ τὸ od οὔ). A 
number of early writers, who possibly did not know the Epistle of James, 
nevertheless agree with his wording in inserting the article before vai and 
ov. 80 8 ΟΣ τὸν (Clem) Fo ting 5, xtc 2: ΠΠΙΠΠ ἐπε) 
xix. 6. Comp. Clem. Alex. Strom. vii. ὃ (a valuable commentary on the 
passage, showing that the true Christian is so addicted to truth that he does 
not need an oath) and vii. 11 (where he has the article with val, but not with 
ov). The difference between the two forms of wording seems to be this. 
‘Let your speech be, Yea, yea; Nay, nay; and whatsoever is more than 
this is of evil’ may mean, ‘Be content with simply affirming and denying: 
oaths imply untrustworthiness on one side and distrust on the other.’ ‘ Let 
your Yea bea Yea, and your Naya Nay; that ye fall not under judgment’ 
appears to mean, ‘ Be straightforward ; do not shuffle and try to say both 
Yes and No, or Yes to-day and No to-morrow. Then you will have no need 
of an oath, and will be guiltless before God and man.’ It is possible to 
bring Jas. v. 12 into harmony with Mt. v. 37 by translating, ‘Let yours be 
the Yea, yea and the Nay, nay’ (see WH. text and RV. margin); but the 
usual translation is simpler and more probable. See J. B. Mayor on Jas. 
v. 12, p. 155, and Knowling, pp. 135, 153; also Zahn on Mt. v. 37, pp. 
244-246, and Dalman, Words, pp. 206, 227. For Jewish condemnation of 
swearing see Ecclus. xxiii. 9-11, and comp. Eccles. ix. 2; but in the latter 
passage ‘he that feareth an oath’ may mean the man who is afraid to swear 
to what he says, because he knows that it is false. In the other pairs in the 
series the good is placed first. 


The fifth illustration of the superiority of the Christian ideal 
is taken (38-42) from the law of retaliation, which was affirmed 
Ex. xxi. 23-25; Lev. xxi. 17-21; Deut. xix. 18-21. Neverthe- 
less, the spirit of revenge was forbidden (Lev. xix. 18; Prov. 
XX. 22, xxiv. 29); vengeance belongs to God (Deut. xxxii. 35; 
Ps. xciv. τ); and the ‘meekness’ of Moses was praised (Num. 
xii. 3), where the meaning of not resenting injuries seems to be 
implied; comp. Prov. xx. 22; Lam. ili. 30. But the Jews too 


1 Josephus (8. /. 11. viii. 6, 7) says that the Essenes regarded their word 
as stronger than an oath, and that they avoided swearing as worse than 
perjury. Yet in the next section he says that those who became Essenes were 
required to take tremendous oaths (ὅρκους φρικώδει5). 


ν. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 85 


often remembered the letter of the Law and thought little of the 
necessary limitations. Nevertheless such a passage as Ecclus. 
xxviii. 1-7 shows that some thoughtful Jews felt that the principle 
of retaliation was out of harmony with the other principle of 
loving one’s neighbour as oneself (Lev. xix. 18). And there 
are passages in the Testaments of the XII. Patriarchs which 
give similar evidence (Gad v. 5, vi. 3, 6).} 

But the ex fa/fonis is too much in harmony with natural 
feelings of vengeance and man’s rough ideas of justice not to 
be very prevalent. And in a primitive state of society it is 
beneficial, as restricting the wildness of revenge. If a wrong- 
doer must “have as good as he gave,” it is best that the law 
should inflict it. Ex. xxi. 24, which Christ here quotes, is 
thought to belong to the oldest part of Jewish law, the Book 
of the Covenant. And the /ex falionis is found in the Code 
of Hammurabi. “Ifa man has caused the loss of a gentleman’s 
eye, one shall cause his eye to be lost. Ifa man has made the 
tooth of a man that is his equal to fall out, one shall make his 
tooth fall out. Ifa man has struck a gentleman’s daughter and 

. if that woman has died, one shall put to death his daughter. 
If a builder has caused the son of the owner of the house to 
die, one shall put to death the son of that builder” (§§ 196, 200, 
210, 230). See also Monier-Williams, /ndian Wisdom, p. 273. 

Just as Christ condemned the casuistry of the Scribes as to 
what oaths were binding and what not, and charged His disciples 
to be content with simple affirmations and denials, so here He 
condemns a similar casuistry as to what penalties should be 
exacted for what injuries, and charges His disciples to be 
content to receive injuries without taking vengeance. But, as 
in the one case we need not suppose that He forbade the use 
of specially solemn affirmations, when (the world being what 
it is) something more than a man’s word is necessary, so in 
this case we cannot suppose that He condemned the laws 
which (the world being what it is) are necessary for the pre- 
servation of society. What He condemns is, not the prosecution 
of those who are guilty of robbery and violence, but the spirit 
of revenge. The law of the Kingdom is not selfishness, but love. 


1 We may compare the well-known story of Pericles, who allowed a man 
to abuse him all day long and all the way home, and then sent his servant 
to light the man back to his house (Plutarch, Per. 5). Phocion, when he 
was condemned to death, was asked what message he had to send to his son 
Phocus, replied: ‘‘Only that he bear no grudge against the Athenians,” for 
putting him to death. 

2 Posse peccatum amore potius vindicari, quam impunitum relingud (Aug. 
De Serm. Dom. 1. xx. 62). Plurimum interest quo animo quisque parcat. 
Stcut entm est altquando misertcordia puniens, tla et crudelitas parcens 
(Ep. 153). 


86 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 


Therefore, in causing transgressors to be punished, those who 
have been injured by them must have no feeling of revenge. 
They ought to be fulfilling a sad duty, not gratifying angry 
feeling. So far as their own personal feeling is concerned, they 
ought to be quite ready that the injury should be repeated. 
““Why are we angry?” asks Epictetus (Déscourses, 1. 18). “Is 
it because we value so much the things of which these men rob 
us? Do not admire your clothes, and then you will not be 
angry with the thieves. They are mistaken about good and 
evil. Ought we then to be angry with them, or to pity them?” 
‘Resist not evil, or the evil man,’ says our Lord;! and His 
Apostle shows why this is right; because ‘love suffereth long 
and endureth all things’ (1 Cor. xiii. 4, 7). Where resistance 
is a duty for the sake of others and for the evil-doer himself, 
it must be done in the spirit of love, not of anger and revenge 
(see Cyprian, De dono patientia). 

And there are cases in which the injured person is under 
no obligation to prosecute, and in which the abstention from 
retaliation is a telling rebuke, more likely to bring the wrong- 
doer to repentance than any penalty would be. Resistance can 
only subdue, gentleness may convert; it is the spirit of the 
martyrs, and martyrs have often touched the hearts of their 
executioners (Pére Didon, Jésus Christ, p. 358).” 

Our Lord gives five examples: assault, lawsuit, impressment, 
begging, and borrowing. They are all figurative. They do not 
give rules for action, but indicate ¢emper. ‘To interpret them as 
rules to be kept literally in the cases specified is to make our 
Lord’s teaching a laughing-stock to the common sense of the 
world. Are we to surrender our property to any one who 
claims it, and to give to every beggar, thus encouraging fraud 
and idleness? No; but we ought to be veady to give to all 
who are in need, and our reason for refusing to give must 
not be that we prefer to keep all that we have got. See notes 
on Lk. vi. 27-31 in the Zt. Crit. Commentary, and Deissmann, 
Bible Studies, p. 86. As Augustine points out, we are not told 
to give everything that is asked for, but to every one who asks. 
We may give him a wholesome word, or may pray for him. 


1 τῷ πονηρῷ is probably neuter: if it were masculine it would mean Satan 
rather than an evil man. 

2 Comp. the story of the thief bringing back Gichtel’s cloak, when the 
latter called out to him that he might have his coat as well (Hase, Geschichte 
Jest, p. 501). With7@ αἰτοῦντί σε δός comp. παρέχετε παντὶ ἀνθρώπῳ ἐν ἀγαθῇ 
καρδίᾳ (Testament of Zebulon, vii. 2; Charles, Ρ. 1xxx); also, ἱκέτην θλιβόμενον 
μὴ ἀπαναίνου, καὶ μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς τὸ πρόσωπόν σου ἀπὸ πτωχοῦ" ἀπὸ δεομένου 
μὴ ἀποστρέψῃς ὀφθαλμόν, καὶ μὴ δῷς τόπον ἀνθρώπῳ καταράσασθαί σε (Ecclus, 
iv. 4, 5, xxix. 2); also, ‘‘Be pliant of disposition and yielding to impress- 
ment” (Pirge Aboth, iii. 18). 


V. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 87 


Christ did not consent when He was asked to interfere about 
the inheritance ; but He gave a wholesome rebuke and warning 
(Lk. xii. 13-15). 

The sixth illustration of the contrast between the Messiah’s 
teaching and that of the Jews is taken (43-47) from the daw of 
love. ‘The Jews regarded the obligation to love one’s neighbour 
(Ley. xix. 18) as binding ; but they asked, Who is my neighbour? 
And they raised this question, not in order to extend the circle 
of those whom they were to love, but in order to see who it was 
that they were ποῦ bound to love, and therefore were free to 
hate. They were bound to love, but only within their own 
nation. No Gentile was a ‘neighbour.’ In Ecclus. xviii. 13, 
where the limitless character of the Divine mercy is contrasted 
with the limitations of human mercy, ‘neighbour’ appears to 
mean Israelite, and perhaps not even all who are such. And, 
although the words ‘hate thine enemy’ are not in the O.T,, 
yet the spirit of them might seem to be there. ‘Thou shalt 
not take vengeance nor bear any grudge against the children of 
thy people’ (Lev. xix. 18) might easily suggest that vengeance on 
foreigners was permitted, if not enjoined; and the treatment 
decreed for Ammonites, Moabites, and Amalekites (Deut. xxiii. 3, 
xxv. 19; Ezra ix. 1, 12; Neh. xiii. 1, 2; Ex. xvii. 14) would 
encourage this view. The stringent separation between Israel 
and all heathen nations which was insisted upon of necessity, 
to avoid the contamination of idolatrous immorality, would 
readily confirm the belief that the loyal servant of Jehovah was 
bound to hate all who were both God’s enemies and his own; 
and it was convenient to assume that his own enemies were 
God’s enemies also. To this day, racial distinctions, even 
within the same commonwealth, are among the gravest causes 
of strife and bloodshed. See J. B. Mozley, Lectures on the O.T. 
pp. 180-200. 

The Jews themselves sometimes rose above this feeling 
(Job xxxi. 29; Prov. xvii. 5, xxiv. 29; Ps. vii. 4, 5, Xxxv. 12-14). 
An enemy’s beast was to be helped (Ex. xxiii. 4, 5), and some 
taught that if both an enemy and a friend were in need, the 
enemy was to be helped first, in order to conquer bad feeling. 
The Book of the Secrets of Enoch says: ‘‘When you might have 
vengeance, do not repay, either your neighbour or your enemy” 
(1. 4). Our Lord enlarged the meaning of ‘neighbour,’ and 
narrowed that of ‘enemy,’ by abolishing the element of race- 
distinction from both. ‘Neighbour’ embraces every human 
being; ‘enemy’ includes no one but those who persecute the 
followers of Christ for their righteousness (10-12). And the 
way to treat such enemies as these is to pray for them. 
“He who can pray for his enemies can do anything for 


88 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [V. 17-48 


them.”! Thus, as in the other cases, Christ does not set up a 
new commandment in opposition to the old: He shows that 
what looks like a new commandment is really contained in the 
old, when it is rightly understood. ‘Thou shalt love thy neigh- 
bour as thyself’ covers everything, when ‘neighbour’ is rightly 
understood ; fora man does not cease to be a neighbour or a 
brother because he has become hostile. A true son of God (45) 
recognizes even the most erring of his fellow-men as still mem- 
bers of the same family. From this it follows that what is the 
supreme mark of affection—love and loving prayer, is to be 
given to the most noxious of opponents—religious persecutors.? 
‘ Love your enemies, and pray for them that persecute you.’ 

That is a severe test of loyalty ; and Christ at once proceeds 
to justify it by the example of God Himself (45, 48). He rains 
His benefits on His worst opponents, who are still His children, 
although greatly erring; and they must not be hated by His 
other children. ‘An eye for an eye’ is a low principle, but 
hatred for hatred is diabolical. Good-will must not allow itself 
to be checked by ill-will; and the man who regards forgiveness 
as weakness can hardly be sincere in asking God to forgive him. 
It is the birthright of God’s children to be peacemakers (9), 
and peacemakers do not feel enmity. They sZow their parentage 
by their moral resemblance to the God who is Love (ὅπως 
γένησθε υἱοί). See Montefiore, pp. 525 f. 

From this follows the law of perfection (48) with which this 
section of the Sermon ends. ‘Ye therefore shall be perfect.’ 
There is strong emphasis on the ‘Ye’ (ἔσεσθε οὖν ὑμεῖς τέλειοι), 
as compared with the toll-collectors and the heathen, on whom 
the claims of love are less. The future tense is equivalent to 
a command, but implies perhaps that, as true sons of such a 
Father, they are sure to imitate Him; and to imitate Him in 
loving enemies, for the majority of mankind are His enemies. 
Yes, ‘perfect, as your heavenly Father is perfect.’ The ideal 
is stupendous, and it allows for continual progress both in time 
and in eternity. Life both in this world and in the other is 
growth, and this law of perfection provides for infinite moral 

1 Resch quotes from Didasc. v. 15, p. 315, ed. Lagarde: διὰ τοῦτο καὶ ἐν 
τῷ εὐαγγελίῳ προείρηκα προσεύχεσθε ὑπὲρ τῶν ἐχθρῶν ὑμῶν" Kal μακάριοι ot 
πενθοῦντες περὶ τῆς τῶν ἀπίστων ἀπωλείας (Agrapha, p. 137). Contrast the 
definition of justice given by Polemarchus in Plat. Repub. i. 332 D 

2 This was what the first martyr, Stephen, did; Acts vii. 60. Comp. 
“ΤᾺ any one seeketh to do evil unto you, do you in well-doing pray for him” 
( Joseph xviii. 2). The words ‘bless them that curse you, do good to them 
that hate you’ (AV.) are here an interpolation from Lk. vi. 27, 28. See 
small print below. 

3 For this sense of γίνεσθαι, ‘prove yourselves to be,’ comp. x. 16, xxiv. 
44; Lk. vi. 36, xii. 40; Jn. xx. 27. For the moral likeness between parent 
and child comp. jn. viii. 39-44; 1 Cor. iv. 14-17. 


Υ. 17-48] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 89 


growth. The context seems to show that perfection in love is 
specially meant ; but that is much the same as saying that the 
perfection of the Divine nature is meant (1 Jn. iv. 8, 16). To 
return evil for good is devilish; to return good for good is 
human ; to return good for evil is divine. To love as God loves 
is moral perfection, and this perfection Christ tells us to aim at. 
How serenely He gives us this overwhelming command! He 
knows that He can help us to obey it. Comp. Gen. xvii. 1; 
Ley. xix. 2; Deut. xviii. 13; Wisd. xii. το. 


For evidence that Mt. has here (39, 40, 42, 44, 48) preserved the original 
wording better than Lk. (vi. 29, 30, 27, 28, 35, 32, 33, 36) see Harnack, 7he 
Sayings of Jesus, pp. 58-63. A couple of instances may serve as evidence : 
(1) Lk.’s literary improvement of ‘love your enemies and pray for your 
persecutors’ into a climax of four gradations, and (2) his changing ‘tax- 
collectors’ and ‘heathen,’ which would hardly be intelligible to Gentile 
readers, into the more general ‘ sinners.’ ὶ 

In the AV. the text of ver. 44 has been enlarged from Lk. The RV. gives 
the true text (NB some cursives, some Old Latin texts, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. 
Boh., Athenag. Orig. Cypr.). So also in ver. 47 ‘the Gentiles’ (δὲ B DZ) is 
to be preferred to ‘the toll-collectors’ (E K L M etc.). 

This (ver. 46) is the first use in Mt. of the word τελῶναι, which is un- 
fortunately rendered ‘ publican’ even in the RV. The pud/icani were those 
who farmed the Roman taxes, z.e. paid the Roman Government a large sum 
for the right to whatever such and such taxes might yield. But the τελῶναι 
of the Synoptists are the fortétores, the people who collected the taxes for 
the pudblicanz. Moreover, ‘publican’ in English suggests the keeper of a 
public-house. See Hastings’ DZB., Extra vol. pp. 394-6. 

Both Syr-Sin. and k (Bobiensis, one of the most important of the Old 
Latin texts) omit ver. 47, possibly because it seemed to be out of harmony 
with xxiii, 7 and Lk. x. 4. The substitution of ‘friends’ (Ε Καὶ L M etc.) for 
‘brethren’ (δὲ Β Ὁ Z) is less easy to understand. Possibly ‘ friends’ seemed 
to be a better antithesis to ‘ enemies’ (44). 

In ch. v. we find these characteristic expressions: προσέρχεσθαι (1), ὁ 
πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (16, 45), ἐρρέθη (21, 27, 31, 33, 38, 43), προσφέρειν 
(23, 24), τότε (24), ὀμνύειν (34, 35). Of phrases which are peculiar to 
Mt. we have ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (3, 10, 19, 20), and ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος 
(48), which occurs 7 times in this Gospel, and on which see Dalman, 7he 
Words of Jesus, p. 189. The latter phrase is closely akin to ὁ π. 6 ἐν. τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς, which occurs 13 times in Mt. and elsewhere only Mk. xi. 25. In 
ver. 48, ὁ οὐράνιος is the right reading (δὲ BE L U Z, af Vulg. Syr-Cur. Arm. 
Aeth. Clem. Orig. Cypr.). While almost all N.T. writers use οὐρανός more 
often than οὐρανοί (Hebrews and 2 Peter being exceptions), Mt. uses the 
plural more than twice as often as the singular (55 to 27 times), and he uses 
the word much more often than any other writer. ‘*The plural is not 
frequent in the LXX: it only occurs about 50 times against more than 600 
occurrences of the singular. It is most common in the Psalms, where it is 
used about 30 times” (Hawkins, Hore Synoptic, p. 41). The following are 
found nowhere else in the N.T. : εἰρηνοποιός (9), ἰῶτα (18), διαλλάσσειν (24), 
εὐνοεῖν (25), ἐπιορκεῖν (33), μίλιον (41), ῥαπίζειν (39 and xxvi. 67). 

The AV. is inaccurate and inconsistent in translating λύχνος ‘candle’ 
(ver. 15) and ‘light’ (vi. 22); the RV. has ‘lamp’ in both places, 


90 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 1-18 


VI. 1-18. Zhe Christian Life contrasted with faulty Jewish 
Practice. 


Having compared the Jewish ideal, as taught by the Scribes, 
with the Christian ideal, as sketched in the Beatitudes, our Lord 
now goes on to contrast the ordinary Jewish practice, as exhibited 
in the conduct of the Pharisees, with the conduct which He 
requires. The Pharisees claimed to be, and were commonly 
allowed to be, patterns for all who desired to be strict observers 
of the Law. Christ does not mention them by name, but speaks 
only of ‘the hypocrites.’ From chapter xxiii. it is evident who 
are meant, and even without that chapter the meaning would not 
be doubtful (xv. 7, xxii. 18). The ‘righteousness’ here (1) looks 
back to ‘the righteousness of the Scribes and Pharisees’ (v. 20), 
and signifies external conduct, deeds in observance of the Law. 
To do these in order to be seen of men is fatal: they at once 
lose their goodness, and the doer of them loses all merit and all 
reward from God. This principle is stated quite simply, and is 
then illustrated by three things which are regarded as among the 
chief elements of religion, alms, prayer, and fasting (Tob. xii. 8), 
and which, in their wider sense, do cover a large sphere of duty. 
Alms may represent our relations to men, prayer our relations to 
God. and fasting our discipline of ourselves. And, if we omit 
the special directions about prayer (7-15), which perhaps are no 
part of the original Sermon, for they spoil the balance of the 
parts, these three illustrations are set forth in the same way. In 
each case we have: ‘ Do not be hypocritical, but,’ ete. 

The opening warning, ‘Take heed’ (προσέχετε), shows how 
great the danger is. Hypocrisy is one of the most common and 
the most subtle of foes. The motives, even for our best deeds, 
are apt to be mixed, and the thought of men’s admiration is 
often one of them. A very little of this may spoil everything. 
In this advertising age, in which a man hardly needs to sound 
his own trumpet, because there are so many who are ready to 
sound it for him, the danger is greatly increased. In this respect, 
Parish Magazines have a great deal to answer for. Christians, 
who never would yield to the glaring hypocrisy of pretending to 
be benevolent when they are not, have the sincerity of their 
benevolence marred by the knowledge that it is sure to be pub- 
lished. The light of a Christian character will shine before men 
and win glory for God without the artificial aid of public advertise- 
ment. Ostentatious religion may have its reward here, but it 
receives none from God. 

Ought the thought of God’s reward to come in? In the 
highest characters at their best it will not. They will act 
righteously for righteousness’ sake, as loyal members of the 


VI. 1-18} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE ΟΙ 


Kingdom, as true children of a heavenly Father. But the highest 
characters take time to develop; and, even when they are 
established, they are not always at their best. During the time 
of growth, and in moments of weakness later, the thought of 
the rewards which God has promised to those who obey Him 
may come in as a legitimate support and stimulus. Those aré 
no friends of human nature who tell us that a religion which 
“bribes” men by the offer of a reward thereby debases morality. 
Everything depends upon the character of the reward. Men 
may have degrading ideas of the joys of the righteous in this 
world and in the next; but such ideas are no part of the little 
which God has revealed to us on the subject. There is nothing 
degrading in working for the reward of a good conscience here, 
and of increased holiness hereafter, both enriched by God’s love 
and blessing. See on x. 42. 

The first verse is an introduction to the whole triplet, and 
must not be restricted to the subject of alms. ‘ Righteousness’ 
covers alms, prayer, and fasting. Each of the separate subjects 
begins with ‘when’ (ὅταν, 2, 5, 16). 


The reading, ‘do not your righteousness before men’ (RV.) is right, rather 
than ‘do not your a/ms before men’ (AV.). ‘Righteousness’ (δικαιοσύνη) 
was sometimes used in the sense of almsgiving (ἐλεημοσύνη) or any kind of 
benevolence; and some copyists, thinking that it had that meaning here, 
changed the more comprehensive term into the narrower one. ‘ Righteous- 
ness’ is the reading of δὲ Β Ὁ, Syr-Sin. Latt., Orig-Lat. Hil. Aug. Hieron., 
and is adopted by almost all editors. The agreement of N# (δόσιν) with Syr- 
Cur. (your gifts) is curious. Zahn suggests that the three readings are 
different oral translations of the Aramaic (Zz#/eztung, ii. p. 311). 


In all three cases the picture drawn of the ostentation of the 
Pharisees is very graphic. ‘Sound a trumpet’ is probably 
figurative, for no such custom seems to be known.!_ This verse 
tells us that almsgiving was part of the service in the synagogue, 
and there we may believe that our Lord gave what He could out 
of His slender means. There is a veiled irony in the declaration 
‘They have received their reward,’ and this adds to its impressive 
severity. ‘They receive their pay then and there, and they 
receive it in full (ἀπέχουσι τὸν μισθὸν αὐτῶν): God owes them 
nothing. They were not giving, but dying. They wanted the 
praise of men, they paid for it, and they have got it. The trans- 
action is ended and they can claim nothing more.? But their 
loss is not the less, because they do not know what they have 


1 Zahn compares Juvenal’s ducina fame (xiv. 152), and dbuctinator ex- 
tstimationis mee (Cic. Fam. xvi. 21. 2). Some Old Latin texts had debucinare 
or bucinare here (Tert. Vir. vel. 13; Cypr. Zest. 111. 40). 

2 The meaning may be, ‘‘ they can sign the receipt for their reward” ; 
dmroxj=receipt. Deissmann, Bible Studies, p. 229. Lk. has what seems to 
be an echo of this, vi. 24. 


92 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 1-18 


lost.’ In all three cases (2, 5, 16) this stern sarcasm is introduced 
with ‘Verily I say unto you,’ as something that is specially to be 
laid to heart. ‘There is a striking parallel to this condemnation 
of hypocrisy in a saying of Plato preserved by Plutarch; that it 
is the extremity of iniquity to seem to be righteous without being 
50 (ἐσχάτης ἀδικίας εἶναι δοκεῖν δίκαιον μὴ ὄντα). S. Basil quotes 
this in Homily xxii, on the study of pagan literature. It. is 
possible that ‘Let not thy left hand know what thy right hand 
doeth’ was a current proverb.! See Montefiore, p. 531. 

Of the high and often exaggerated views which Jews had of 
the duty and advantages of a/msgiving we have plenty of examples 
in Tobit (iv. 7-11, xii. 8-10; xiv. g-12) and in Ecclesiasticus 
(iii, τὰ; 30; tv. 3; 45 Υἱῖ: τὸ, Xvi. 14) xxim 12, ΧΙ: 24). Our 
Lord leaves unnoticed the doctrine that alms can remove the 
consequences of sin, and even purge men from the stain of sin. 
He is content to insist that almsgiving must be done in God’s 
sight, without thought of man’s praise. Purity of motive was the 
essential thing, and, if that was secured, the idea of buying 
pardon for sin would lose its hold.2 Christ had other ways of 
teaching how sin and its effects could be removed. 

The problem in our day is of a different character. The 
peril of ostentatious giving may be as great as ever; but, while 
the heresy that alms can cancel sin is less common, the rigid 
orthodoxy of the economist is very prevalent, and there is 
danger lest, through fear of pauperizing the recipients, there may 
at last be no givers. Christ has not cancelled the blessing 
promised to the man that ‘considereth the poor,’ nor the 
principle that ‘he that hath pity upon the poor lendeth to the 
Lord’ (Ps. xli, 1; Pr. xix. 17): He declared that treasure may 
be laid up in heaven by a benevolent use of wealth on earth 
(20), and He told the rich young man that he could have this 
treasure by distributing his wealth to the poor (xix. 21). ‘It is 
more blessed to give than to receive’ (Acts xx. 35); and what 
is given is given to Him (xxv. 40). 


‘Openly’ (€v τῷ φανερῷ) is wanting in δὲ BD, Vulg. Boh. Cypr., and is 
omitted as an interpolation by almost all editors. But it is ancient, for it is 
in the Old Latin and Old Syriac. If it is omitted, ἐν τῷ κρυπτῷ may be 
taken with ἀποδώσει : ‘and thy Father who seeth will recompense thee in 
secret’; Ζ.6. thy reward will be as unknown to the world as thy benevolence. 


1 The Talmud says that Rabbi Jannai, seeing a man giving alms in public, 
said; ‘‘ Thou hadst better not have given at all, than to have bestowed alms 
so openly and put the poor man to shame.” Rabbi Eliasar said: ‘‘ He who 
gives alms in secret is greater than Moses.” 

* Yet even Leo the Great seems to be held by it: ‘‘ By prayer we seek to 
propitiate God, by fasting we extinguish the lusts of the flesh, by alms we 
redeem our sins” (Sevzon xv. 4). 


VI. 1-18} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 93 


Zahn contends for this, and Bengel seems to imply it, but the RV. does not 
admit it to the margin. ‘Thou shalt be recompensed in the resurrection of 
the just’ (Lk. xiv. 14) seems to imply in the sight of the saints of all ages, 
and this may have suggested ‘ openly.’ 


The same principle is given with regard to Jrayer. We need 
not suppose that the Pharisees went out into the streets to say 
their prayers, but that, when they were in a public place at the 
hour of prayer, they were ostentatious in performing their 
devotions. They were glad to be seen praying, and chose a 
conspicuous place. As in almsgiving, it is not the being seen, 
but the wish to be seen, and to be seen in order to be admired, 
that is condemned. Of all hypocrisies, that of pretending to 
have intercourse with God, and of making a parade of such 
intercourse, is one of the worst. Christ of course does not 
condemn public worship: it is saying private prayers in needless 
publicity, in order to gain a reputation for special sanctity, that 
is denounced.! 

What follows (7-15) is manifestly no part of the original 
sermon. It is not in harmony with the context, which treats of 
the contrast between Pharisaic hypocrisy and Christian sincerity, 
and it spoils the symmetry of the three paragraphs on alms, 
prayer, and fasting, extending the one on prayer out of all 
proportion to the other two. Here we may be sure that Mt. has 
inserted sayings on prayer which were uttered on a different 
occasion, or on several different occasions. It was quite natural 
todoso. The Evangelist would feel that a discourse which was 
to serve as a summary of the Messiah’s teaching ought to include 
the Messiah’s pattern Prayer. 

These special directions about prayer begin with an error, 
not of the Pharisees, but of the heathen. The exact meaning 
of the word translated ‘use vain repetitions’ (βατταλογήσητε) is 
uncertain, but it is probably intended to imitate unintelligible 
sounds, and to refer to the repetition of forms of prayer without 
attending to what one is saying. ‘Much speaking’ (πολυλογία) 
is not necessarily synonymous with ‘vain repetitions.’ There 
may be lengthy petitions which are not unintelligent rehearsals 
of forms of words. What is condemned is the idea that God 
needs to be worried, and can be worried, into granting prayers, 
and that petitions, if repeated many times, are more likely to be 
answered than a petition said only once.2, Weare not to suppose 

1 The figurative meaning of τὸ ταμεῖόν cov need not be excluded, Praying 
in the privacy of one’s own heart, and closing the door against disturbing 
thoughts, may be part of the lesson derived from ver. 6 ; but there is perhaps 
a reference to 2 Kings iv. 33. 

2 Contrast the short prayer of Elijah (1 Kings xviii. 36, 37) with Baal’s 


prophets crying ‘O Baal, hear us’ from morning until noon. Cornelius a 
Lapide compares those who use a futile profusion of words in prayer, ‘as 


04 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [VI. 1-18 


that prayers are incantations and act upon God like a charm, 
compelling Him to do what He is unwilling to do. And just as 
Christ does not condemn public prayer, but praying in public in 
order to win esteem, so here He does not condemn all repetition 
in prayer,—for He Himself used the:same words again and 
again in Gethsemane (xxvi. 44; Mk. xiv. 39),—but superstitious 
and profane repetition. We repeat supplications, not in order to 
secure God’s attention, as if He might grant at the third 
supplication what He refused at the first ; but in order to secure 
our own attention. God is always ready to listen to His children’s 
needs ; but they are not always attending to what they say when 
they bring their needs before Him. Moreover, they have not 
always prepared their hearts for the reception of the blessings 
for which they ask. For the remedying of these two defects the 
repetition of the same words may be useful. Prayer, and the 
repetition of prayers, make it possible for us to receive what we 
pray for. We are not moving God towards us; for that there is 
no need: we are raising ourselves towards Him. ‘Prayer calms 
and purifies the heart, and makes it more capacious for receiving 
the Divine gifts. God is always ready to give us His light, but 
we are not always ready to receive” (Aug. De Serm. Dom. 11. 
iii. 14). By prayer we open channels through which blessings, 
which are always ready, may flow. 

In order to teach His disciples how much may be prayed 
for in a few simple words, the Messiah gives them the model 
Prayer, which shows all mankind why, and for what, and in 
what spirit, they ought to pray.t It translates into human 
language the ‘groanings which cannot be uttered’ in which the 
Spirit makes intercession for us. Even if it were true that for 
each of the petitions in the Prayer parallels can be found in 
Jewish prayers, the Prayer as a whole would still remain with- 
out a rival. But it is not true. Real parallels to ‘Thy will be 
done’ and to ‘Give us day by day our daily bread’ have yet to 
be found; and some of the parallels to the other petitions are 
perhaps later than the Prayer and may be taken from it. Yet 
it would have been surprising if all the petitions in the Prayer 
had been new; if in the prayers that had been in use among 


if by this their rhetoric they would give God information concerning His own 
affairs, and would bend Him to concede what they ask.” See Augustine’s 
letter to Anicia Faltonia Proba on the subject of prayer (22. 130): Alind 
est sermo multus, aliud diuturnus affectus. Absit ab oratione mutta locutio ; 
sed non desit multa precatio. Comp. Eccles. v. 2. 

1 For the abundant literature on the Lord’s Prayer, and for the discussion 
of literary and critical questions respecting the two forms which have come 
down to us, see commentaries on Matthew and Luke, and articles in Diction- 
aries of the Bible; also Chase, Zhe Lord’s Prayer in the Early Church 
(1891). 


VI. 1-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 95 


God’s people there had been nothing that God’s Son could use 
again for the edification of His Church. The Prayer is the 
outcome of the religious experience of mankind, culminating in 
the experience of the Son of Man. Such a Prayer would be 
likely to contain things both new and old. 

The form given here and that given by Lk. (xi. 1-4) can 
hardly both be original, and it is probable that both were 
modified by tradition before they were written down. Forms of 
prayer almost invariably undergo change. And Christ’s charge 
in giving the Prayer does not forbid this. He says: ‘ Zhwus’ 
(οὕτως), ‘after this manner’ (not, ‘in these words’), ‘ therefore, 
pray ye.’ The emphasis is on ‘thus’ and on ‘ye.’ In this simple, 
trustful, comprehensive manner, so different from the useless 
repetitions of the heathen, the children of the true God are to 

ray. 
But, although we cannot be sure that the form here is nearer 
to the original Prayer than the shorter form in Lk., the judgment 
and experience of Christendom (from the first century onwards) 
has decided that the form in Mt. best answers to the needs of 
Christians, whether for public or for private use. 


The Lord’s Prayer. 


The Prayer is not only an authoritative form of devotion, 
it is also a summary and a pattern. 

It is a form, stamped with Christ’s authority,! which any one 
can use and know that he is expressing his needs in a becoming 
manner. There is nothing in it that is either distinctly Jewish 
or distinctly Christian. Any Theist, of any race, or age, or 
condition, can employ it, just in proportion to his belief. A 
Christian’s knowledge of its meaning grows with his spiritual 
experience. In giving this Prayer, Christ has sanctioned the 
principle of forms of prayer, and has also supplied a form which 
is always safe. 

It is a summary of all other prayers, although it does not 
supersede them.? It covers all earthly and spiritual needs, and 
gives expression to all heavenly aspirations. 

And it is a pattern for all prayers. It shows what supplica- 
tions may be made, and in what spirit they ought to be made. 
We may pray for all that tends to the glory of God or the good 
of man, and the glory of God comes first; and our aim must be 


1 But it is not a form which Christ ever used, or could use. He never 
asked for, or could need, forgiveness (Steinbeck, Das gottliche Selbstbewusst- 
sein Jesu, p. 26). 

2 Tertullian calls it dreviarium totius evangelit (De Orat. 1); Augustine 
says that there is no lawful petition that is not covered by it (Z. 130). 


96 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTIIEW [ VI. 1-18 


that His will may be done in us, not that it may be changed 
in accordance with ours. 

Just as there is want of agreement as to the number of the 
Beatitudes, so there is want of agreement as to the number of 
petitions in the Prayer. Some make five, some six, and some 
seven. Seven is an attractive number, and it is obtained by 
counting ‘Lead us not into temptation but deliver us’ as two 
separate petitions. The six petitions are reduced to five by 
regarding ‘Hallowed be Thy Name’ as an expression of praise 
or reverence rather than a petition, like ‘Blessed be the Lord 
God of Israel.’ But the prayer is best regarded as consisting of 
two equal parts, each containing three petitions. It will then be 
found that the two triplets correspond.! 


Our Father which art in heaven, 
Hallowed be Thy Name, 
Thy Kingdom come, 
Thy Will be done, 
as in heaven, so on earth. 
Our daily bread 
give us this day: 
And forgive us our debts, 
as we also have forgiven our debtors: 
And lead us not into temptation, 
but deliver us from the evil one. 


As in the case of the Decalogue and of the Two Great 
Commandments (xxii. 40), the first part refers to God, the 
second to man. In the first three petitions we seek the glory 
of our heavenly Father, in the last three the advantage of 
ourselves and our fellows. But there is no sharp line of separa- 
tion between these two. The glory of God is a blessing to His 
children, and what benefits them is a glory to their heavenly 
Father. Thus, while the first three petitions show the end 
which we should have in view—the accomplishment of God’s 
Glory, Kingdom, and Will, the last three show the means— 
provision, pardon, and protection. 

The two triplets correspond thus. The first petition is 
addressed to God as our Father, the second as our King, the 
third as our Master. We ask our Father for sustenance, our 
King for pardon, our Master for guidance and guardianship. 
The transition from the one triplet to the other, from man’s 
regard for God to God’s care for man, is made in the third 


1 Mt. is fond οἱ arrangements in sevens, and still more fond of arrange- 
ments in threes. It is as probable that he thought of two triplets as that he 
thought of one sevenfold prayer. In Lk. xi, 2-4 there are five petitions, 
according to the true text. See Bruce, 7he Training of the Twelve, p. 53. 


VI. 9, 10] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE οὔ 


petition, which would raise earth to heaven by securing that 
God’s rule should be equally complete in both. And in each 
triplet there is progression. In the first, the hallowing of God’s 
Name leads to the coming of the Kingdom, and the coming of 
the Kingdom to the perfect fulfilment of God’s Will. In the 
second, the obtaining of good is followed by the removal of evil, 
past, present, and future. This marvellous proportion and 
development cannot be accidental; and, to whatever extent 
old material has been used in this Prayer, it was composed in 
the spirit of Him who said, ‘Behold I make all things new’ 
(Rey. xxi. 5). 

Our Father which art in heaven. In the Old Testament God 
is the Father of the Jewish nation (Deut. xxxii. 6; Is. Ixill. 16 ; 
Jer. iii. 4, 19, xxxi. 9; Mal. i. 6, 11. 10). In the Apocrypha He 
is spoken of as the Father of individuals (Wis. ii. τό, xiv. 3; 
Ecclus. xxiii. 1, 4, li. 10; Tob. xiii. 4). They are His offspring, 
made in His image, and are the objects of His loving care. But 
the New Testament carries us further than this, to a Fatherhood 
which, however, as yet is not universal. ‘As many as receive 
the Son, to them gave He the right to become children of God, 
even to them that believe on His Name’ (Jn. i. 12). The 
address, ‘Our Father,’ expresses our confidence that we shall be 
heard, and heard for others as well as for ourselves. We belong 
to a great family, and there must be no selfishness in our 
prayers; the blessings for which we ask are blessings to be 
shared by others. 

‘Which art in heaven.’ We need constantly to remind 
ourselves that heaven is not a place. We are obliged to think 
under conditions of space and time, yet we ought to remember 
that there is no portion of space in which God dwells more than 
in other portions. When we speak of heaven as His dwelling- 
place, ‘heaven’ is a symbol to express His remoteness from all 
the limitations to which human beings, and the universe in which 
He has placed them, are subject. ‘Which art in heaven’ 
reminds us that between His infinite perfections and our 
miserable imperfections there is an immeasurable gulf, although, 
at the same time, He is in us and we are in Him. 

Hallowed be Thy Name. That this petition stands first 
warns us against self-seeking in prayer. We are not to begin 
with our own wants, not even our spiritual wants; not with 
ourselves at all, but with God. It is His claims which are to be 
thought of first. His Name represents His nature, His character, 
Himself, so far as all this can be known. ‘Hallow’ may mean 
‘make holy,’ which is impossible with regard to God or His 


1 Oratio fraterna est; non dicit, Pater meus sed, Pater noster, omnes 
videlicet und oratione complectens (Aug.). 


7 


98 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW | VI. 10 


Name. But ‘hallow’ may also mean ‘make known as holy,’ 
which is what God does when He hallows His Name. And it 
may also mean ‘vegard as holy,’ which is what man does when 
he hallows God’s Name. It is for both these that we pray in 
this first petition. We pray that God will reveal to us more and 
more of the holiness of His character; and we also pray that He 
will enable us to recognize His holiness, to understand more and 
more of the elements of which it consists, and to pay to it all the 
reverence that is possible, especially that most sincere form of 
reverence,—conscious and humble imitation. Thus while the 
address, ‘Our Father,’ encourages us to approach God with 
confidence, the first petition acts as a check upon any irreverent 
familiarity.} 

Thy Kingdom come. ‘The petition is the most Jewish of all 
the petitions. The Talmud says: “That prayer in which there 
is no mention of the Kingdom of God is not a prayer.” But the 
petition is equally Christian. It asks that God’s rule may 
everywhere prevail over all hearts and wills. It sums up the 
Messianic hopes of the Hebrews and the still more comprehensive 
hopes of the disciples of Christ, who began His Ministry on 
earth with the proclamation that this Kingdom was about to 
begin. He founded it, and it has been developing ever since. 
This petition asks that its progress may be hastened by increased 
knowledge of God’s commands and increased obedience to them. 
It asks that the principles of God’s government may be victorious 
over the principles of the world and of the evil one; victorious 
in the individual heart, and also in the workings of society. It 
is a missionary prayer; but we unduly limit its meaning if we 
interpret it merely as a petition for the spread of Christianity. If 
the whole human race had accepted the Gospel, this petition 
would still stand. ‘The Kingdom of God is within you,’ and 
there is no limit to the progress which it may make in each loyal 
soul. There is always the Divine perfection to be realized more 
and more (v. 48). 

Thy Will be done, as in heaven, so on earth. We must know 
God’s character before we know what He wills; and hence the 
petition, ‘ Hallowed be Thy Name’ precedes ‘Thy Will be done.’ 
We could not pray that any one’s will might be done while we 
were in ignorance of what the will was likely to be. But when 
God’s character has been in some degree revealed to us, and 
revered by us, we can with sure trust go on to ask that His Will 
may be done, and done in this world with all the fulness and 
perfection with which it is done in that spiritual region in which 


1*¢ As in the Lord’s Prayer, so in the ancient liturgies, the aorist 
imperative is almost exclusively used. It is the true tense for ‘instant’ 
prayer” (J. H. Moulton, Gram. of N.T. Gr. p. 173). 


VI. 10] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 99 


God’s rule absolutely prevails. This petition reminds us of the 
part which we have to play in the realization of the Divine ideal. 
God has not reserved everything for Himself and made every- 
thing to depend upon His absolute decree. His Will is not the 
only will in the universe. He has created other wills, and left 
them free even to rebel against Himself. God’s Name will not 
be rightly hallowed, His Kingdom will not fully come, until all 
wills are united to His in entire sympathy.- Over this each one 
of us has his share of control; it rests with him whether, so far 
as he is concerned, God’s Will is done, and done with loving 
cheerfulness. 

‘As in heaven, so on earth.’ Therefore, ‘in heaven’ also 
there are wills that conform to the Will of God: the petition 
would scarcely have meaning, if this were not so. So that this 
petition is a revelation respecting the unseen world: it is 
tenanted by spiritual beings who are obedient to the Divine 
Will. To interpret ‘in heaven’ of the heavenly bodies is not 
wrong, but it is inadequate. The sun, moon, and stars are 
symbols of perfect obedience to God’s decrees, but they are not 
examples of obedience, for there is no willing response to 
authority, no reasonable service. This petition does not mean 
that men are to be reduced to the condition of perfect machines, 
knowing nothing of the mind which designed them. The 
reference is not to creatures who are lower than man, being not 
made in the image of God, but to those who are higher in the 
order of creation, or higher in the conditions of their present life. 
We can hardly doubt that the reference is to the Angels, and 
perhaps also to ‘the spirits of just men made perfect’ (Heb. 
xll. 23). And this leads to a further revelation. These spiritual 
beings do God’s Will, for it is in this that we are to be like them.? 
Therefore life in the unseen world is not idleness but activity ; 
and the end to which this petition looks is the working of all 
created wills in absolute unison with the Will of their Creator. 

It is possible to take ‘as in heaven, so on earth’ with the 
first two petitions, as well as with the third, and this makes 
excellent sense. 

1 Voluntas tua corrigatur ad voluntatem Det, non voluntas Dei detorqueatur 
ad tuam (Aug.). ‘‘ Be bold as a leopard, and swift as an eagle, and strong 
as a lion, to do the will of thy Father which is in Heaven” (P%rge Adoth, 
ν. 30). 

ἦ i The sun, moon, and stars change not their order ; so do ye also change 
not the Law of God by the disorderliness of your doings” (NafAtali iii. 2). 

5 Mt. gives us more of Christ’s sayings respecting Angels than any other 
Evangelist: xiii. 39, 41, 49, xvi. 27, xviii. 10, xxii. 30, xxiv. 31, 36, 
XXV. 31, 41, xxvi. 53. Of these Mk. gives us four: viii. 38, xii. 25, 
xiii. 27, 32, and Lk. two: ix. 26, xx. 36. But Lk. adds others: xii. 8, 9, 


xv. 10, xvi. 22. We have therefore more than a dozen utterances of our 
Lord on the subject, and His belief and doctrine can hardly be doubted. 


ΙΟΟ GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ VI. 11 


Our daily bread give us this day. We pass now from the 
Divine to the human, although (as we have seen in considering 
the petitions which have special reference to the former) the 
two are closely interwoven. After such a petition as the third, 
there is no bathos in coming to this request for the supply of 
man’s temporal needs. After praying that we may be able to 
serve God on earth as perfectly as He is served in heaven, we 
may pray that He -will give us all that is necessary for our 
continued life on earth in His service. And this petition, which 
is in both forms of the Prayer, is sufficient answer to the theory 
that the benefits to be won by prayer are purely subjective, viz. 
the quickening of our own spiritual life by communion with God. 
This petition is strangely misleading, if it does not mean that 
there are temporal blessings which we may obtain from God by 
asking for them. Granted that many of these blessings come 
to those who never pray: that does not prove that they are not 
won by the supplications of those who do pray, nor that those 
who do pray are not more richly endowed with them. A man 
really possesses only that which he enjoys; and the enjoyment 
of temporal goods is always enhanced by the recognition that 
they are God’s gifts. There is no surer way of making this 
recognition constant and real than by often thanking God for 
His gifts and asking Him to continue them. And this petition 
not only allows, but commands us to pray for bodily sustenance 
and the supply of temporal needs. Prayer against temporal 
calamities is also enjoined (xxiv. 20; Mk. xili. 18); and the 
prayer of the disciples for help in the storm was heard (viii. 26 ; 
Mk. iv. 39; Lk. viii. 24). 

God has given us a nature capable of desiring external things, 
and He has placed us in a world in which such desires can be 
gratified. In this petition Christ teaches us that it is lawful to 
pray for the gratification of such desires,—always in submission 
to the Divine Will. We may pray for them, both for ourselves 
and for others. And it is a great test of the rightness of our 
desires that we can turn them into prayers. Desire for what 
cannot be in accordance with the Will of God is not one that 
we can ask Him to grant. We cannot ask God to bless fraud 
and lust; but we can ask Him to bless honest work as a means 
of obtaining food, and raiment, and healthful enjoyment. All 
which is to be shared with others: ‘Give ws.’ Therefore he who 
has received more than his share is bound to consider the 
needs of those who have received less. ‘Give ws’ becomes a 
mockery when those who have been entrusted with a large 
portion of God’s bounty do nothing for the fulfilment of their 
own prayer in reference to others. S. James has spoken 
severely of all such in the famous passage on faith and works 


VI. 11, 12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 10! 


(ii. 14-17); and his words are perhaps an echo of those of his 
Brother (xxv. 41-45). ‘Give me’ is a prayer which may easily 
end in selfishness : ‘give ws,’ once realized, is a safeguard against 
self-seeking. Pudlica est nobis et communis oratio, et quando 
oramus, non pro uno sed pro populo toto oramus, quia totus populus 
unum sumus (Cyprian, De Dom. Orat. 7). 

’The extremely perplexing word which is translated ‘daily’ 
(ἐπιούσιος: see below) perhaps means ‘needful,’ just what 
is required for health and strength. If so, the petition is 
similar to that in the prayer of Agur: ‘Give me neither poverty 
nor riches; feed me with the food that is needful for me’ 
(Prov. xxx. 8). 

We are not to ask for superfluities. The petition will cover 
what is needed for culture and refinement, but it will not cover 
luxury and extravagance. What we need must not be interpreted 
to mean all that we desire; sufficiency and contentment will 
never be reached by that method. Contentment is reached by 
moderating wants, not by multiplying possessions. 


It is remarkable that ἐπιούσιος is in both forms of the Prayer, and the 
word is found nowhere elise in Greek literature. It seems to have been 
coined for the occasion. It is part of the strong evidence that our Lord 
habitually spoke Aramaic rather than Greek, for He would not have put into 
the pattern Prayer, otherwise so simple in its language, a word that had 
never been used before. It is possible that some one invented the word in 
order to translate an Aramaic adjective used by Christ. It is also possible 
that there was no adjective (elsewhere in the Prayer there is none), but that 
this was inserted at an early period after the Prayer had come into common 
use. If ‘needful’ is not the meaning, ‘daily,’ or ‘for the coming day,’ 
or ‘continual’ may be right. See Lightfoot, Oz a Fresh Revision of the 
New Testament, App. i. ; M‘Clellan, 7he New Zestament, i. pp. 632-647 ; 
Cremer, Lexicon, sub voc. Recently discovered papyri have thrown much 
light on Biblical language, but not on this word: Origen’s remark, that it 
is not found elsewhere in Greek, is still true. Jerome’s statement, that in 
the Gospel of the Hebrews the word used was ma@har, would confirm the 
rendering ‘ for the coming day,’ if we could be sure that ἐπιούσιος is a trans- 
lation of it. ‘Give us to-day our bread for to-morrow’ is not excluded by 
‘Be not anxious for to-morrow’ (34): the petition in that case would be a 
means of avoiding anxiety. Nevertheless, the daily asking for to-morrow’s 
bread does not seem quite natural. But ‘to-day,’ even without the rendering 
‘daily,’ necessarily led to the conclusion that the prayer was to be used 
daily. 


And forgive us our debts, as we also have forgiven our debtors. 
‘Give’ is followed by ‘forgive.’ External needs for the present 
moment are the most obvious and pressing; but spiritual needs 
at once assert themselves, and these are thought of in reference 
to the past and the future. There are past sins and future 
temptations to be reckoned with. The more we are conscious 
that the good things which we enjoy are the free gifts of our 
Father, the more conscious we are likely to be of the miserable 


102 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ VI. 12, 13 


return which we have made to Him. Benefits received and 
recognized quicken the sense of injuries done to the benefactor. 
And this sense of injuries cannot be removed by resolutions of 
better conduct towards the injured benefactor in the future. 
His forgiveness of the injuries must be obtained, and therefore 
must be asked. This is what we owe to him; it is a duty, a 
debt: and in reference to our heavenly Father there has been 
a heavy accumulation of debts, which is constantly increasing. 
We are accustomed to distinguish three spheres of duty—to God, 
to our fellows, and to ourselves, and the distinction is useful. 
But, in reality, all transgressions of duty to ourselves and to 
our neighbours are transgressions of our duty to God. All 
transgressions of duty are debts to Him, and we need His 
forgiveness for them, not in order to escape the penalties of our 
wrong-doing, but in order that the loving relation between 
Father and child may be restored. The sense of sin is perhaps 
as general as the sense of bodily need, but it is not as frequently 
felt. The one cannot long be forgotten or ignored, but the 
other may be; and the constant use of this petition helps to 
keep alive in our hearts the sense of sin and consequent need 
of forgiveness. 

‘As we also have forgiven our debtors.’ The ‘as’ must 
not be pressed to mean that the fulness of the Father’s forgive- 
ness is to be measured by the extent to which we forgive our 
fellow-men. No such hard bargaining is to be understood. 
What is meant is, that we ourselves must cultivate a spirit of 
forgiveness towards those who seem to have wronged us, before 
we venture to claim forgiveness for ourselves. God has more 
to forgive to each individual than any human being can have; 
and He is more ready to forgive: it is impossible for men to 
equal Him in this. But men can try to imitate Him (Eph. v. 1), 
and only so far as they imitate Him have they the right to use 
this petition. The Talmud says: ‘ He who is indulgent towards 
others’ faults will be mercifully dealt with by the Supreme Judge.” 

Lead us not into temptation, but deliver us from the evil one. 
The sixth petition, like the fifth, is concerned with spiritual 
rather than physical needs, but it deals with the future and not 
with the present or the past. Alike in his spiritual and in his 
physical life the Christian is dependent upon God. It is God 
who supplies his daily need of food, and it is God who can pro- 
tect him from his constant temptations. Life is full of trials, 
not all of which are temptations to do what God forbids. But 
all trials are opportunities of doing what is wrong, for we may 
take them in a rebellious spirit. Yet every kind of trial is to be 
accepted as a necessary means of strengthening our characters, 
for there can be no virtue without temptations to vice, tempta- 


VI. 13] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 103 


tions which come from the evil one. In few things is God's 
power of bringing good out of evil seen more clearly than when 
He turns what the devil intends as ‘occasions of falling’ into 
opportunities that may be ‘for our wealth’; for every tempta- 
tion vanquished adds to the strength and richness of the soul. 
But the humble child of God is aware of his own weakness, and 
he therefore prays that his heavenly Father will not allow him 
to be too often or too sorely tried, but will in all cases deliver 
him when he is tried, either by strengthening his powers of 
resistance or by lessening the attractiveness of sin. In short, 
he prays for that shield of faith, wherewith he may ‘ quench all 
the fiery darts of the evil one’ (Eph. vi. 16). 

It cannot be determined with certainty whether ‘deliver us 
from evil’ or ‘deliver us from the evil ove’ is right: the Greek 
(ῥῦσαι ἡμᾶς ἀπὸ τοῦ πονηροῦ) will bear either meaning, and both 
are found in the New Testament. We certainly have ‘ evil’ in 
the neuter sense Lk. vi. 45, Rom. xii. 9, and we certainly have 
‘the evil ove’ of Satan Mt. xiii. 19, 38; 1 Jn. ii. 13, 14, ill. 12, 
y. 18, and probably elsewhere, Here the ‘but’ suggests the 
masculine: ‘Lead us not into temptation, dwt deliver us from 
the tempter.’ If evil in general were meant, we should expect 
‘and deliver from evil.’ The evidence of the Greek Fathers, 
who in such a matter have great weight, of the earliest Latin 
Fathers, and of various Liturgies, is strongly in favour of the 
masculine. But modern scholars are much divided on the 
subject. See Lightfoot, Ox a Fresh Revision, App. ii., and 
Canon Cook’s reply in the Guardian, Sept. 1881. 


On the other hand, there is no doubt that the doxology, ‘ For Thine is the 
Kingdom,’ etc., is no part of the Prayer. It is not found in Lk., and it is an 
interpolation (due to liturgical use) in the authorities which have it here. 
Those which have it vary in the wording and as to the addition or omission 
of ‘Amen’: some have ‘Amen’ without the doxology. It is absent from 
N BDZ, five cursives, Latt. Boh., Orig. Tert. Cypr. Aug. ; and not until 
Chrys. does its wording become fixed. But doxologies of some kind were 
added to the Prayer as early as the second century (k Syr-Cur. Sah.). In the 
Didache (viii. 2) we have “‘ for Thine is the power and the glory for ever” ; 
and in the newly discovered uncial MS., now in the possession of Mr. C. L. 
Freer of Détroit, U.S.A., the full form is found, with the exception of τῶν 
αἰώνων after els τοὺς αἰῶνας, but with the Amen : ‘‘ For Thine is the kingdom 
and the power and the glory for ever. Amen.” This perplexing uncial, 
which is believed to be of the fifth, or possibly of the fourth century, also 
contains the interpolation about the weather, xvi. 2, 3. See C. R. Gregory, 
Das Freer-Logion, Leipzig, 1908 ; E. Jacquier, Histotre des Livres du N.T. 
iii. pp. 338-344, Paris, 1908. 

It does not follow, because the doxology is no part of the original Prayer, 
that it ought not to be used. It has evidently supplied a felt want. Perhaps 
Christians have not liked ending the prayer with ‘ evil’ or ‘the evil one.’ 
See Nestle, Zextual Criticism, pp. 250, 251; and (for a halting defence of 
the interpolation) Scrivener (Miller), ii. pp. 323, 324. The source may be 
1 Chron, xxix. 11. 


104 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ VI. 13-16 


It is worth while comparing the Mourner’s Aaddazsh as it is still used in 
the Morning Service of the Synagogue. 

** Magnified and sanctified be His great Name in the world which He hath 
created according to His will. May He establish His Kingdom during your 
life and during your days, and during the life of all the house of Israel, even 
speedily and at a near time, and say ye, Amen. 

Let His great Name be blessed for ever and to all eternity. 

Blessed, praised and glorified, exalted, extolled and honoured, magnified 
and lauded be the Name of the Holy One, blessed be He; though He be 
high above all the blessings and hymns, praises and consolations, which are 
uttered in the world; and say ye, Amen” (Zhe Authorised Daily Prayer 
Book of the United Hebrew Congregations, p. 77). 

A common response in the Temple-service is said to have been: “" Blessed 
be the Name of the Glory of His Kingdom for ever and ever.” 


The two verses (14, 15) which follow the Prayer are inserted 
as a comment on ‘Forgive as we have forgiven.’ A_ similar 
saying is recorded Mk. xi. 25: ‘ And whenever ye stand praying, 
forgive, if ye have aught against any one; that your Father also 
which is in heaven may forgive you your trespasses’; where 
‘your Father which is in heaven’ looks like a reference to the 
Prayer. Nowhere else does Mk. use this phrase. But our 
forgiveness of others is only part of what is necessary in order to 
obtain forgiveness for ourselves from God. ΒΥ itself, our refusal 
to forgive others prevents our obtaining forgiveness from Him ; 
but our forgiving others will not, by itself, secuze forgiveness from 
Him. There isa close parallel in Ecclus. xxviii. 2 ; and also in 
the Testaments: ‘Do you also, my children, have compassion 
on every man in mercy, that the Lord also may have compassion 
and mercy on you” (Zedu/on viii. 1). 


These two verses, which are possibly derived from Mk. xi. 25, are 
additional evidence that the doxology is no part of the original text. As it 
is, they come in somewhat awkwardly ; but after the doxology a return toa 
petition in the Prayer would be still more strange. And it is worth noting 
that Mk. xi. 25 is more suitable than Mt. v. 23, 24, which resembles it, to 
an audience in Galilee. The case of ‘offering thy gift at the altar’ would 
come home to an audience in Jerusalem, accustomed to make offerings in the 
Temple ; but ‘ whensoever ye stand praying’ would suit any Jewish audience. 
It is not improbable that some of the material of which the Sermon as we 
have it in Mt. is composed comes from teaching which was originally given 
at Jerusalem. 


The third illustration of the contrast between Pharisaic 
practice and the Christian ideal is faséimg. As in the two other 
cases, the illustration is introduced with a ‘when’ or ‘ whenever’ 
(ὅταν), not with an ‘if’ (ἐάν). It is assumed that the truly 
religious man will fast, as it is assumed that he will give alms 
and pray. ‘The Pharisees made a parade of fasting twice a week, 
Monday and Thursday, in addition to the annual fast prescribed 
for all; hence the boast in the parable (Lk. xviii. 12). And they 
let the world know that they were fasting by their sanctimonious 


» 


VI. 16-19] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 105 


behaviour. The unusual expression about their ‘disfiguring their 
faces’ has a parallel in the Testaments: τοῦτο (this evil temper) 
τὸ πρόσωπον adavile. (Zebulon viii. 6). Loisy thinks that there 
is un jeu de mots between ἀφανίζουσιν and φανῶσιν, ‘they dis- 
figure . . . that they may figure.’ If it is intentional, it is the 
Evangelist’s; or his Greek source may have contrived it. It 
would not be likely to exist in the original Aramaic: comp. 
XXi. 41, XXIV. 30. 

In ver. 18 Wellhausen would omit the τῷ before the first ἐν 
τῷ κρυφαίῳ and connect these three words with νηστεύων---- but 
as fasting in secret.’ This is arbitrary and without advantage. 

There is no real difficulty in the fact that at this time our 
Lord’s disciples did not fast (ix. 14; Mk. ii. 18). Our Lord 
knew that they would fast after His departure, and He here 
provides principles for this form of discipline. Moreover, He is 
here addressing a mixed multitude, most of whom were in 
religion purely Jewish, and therefore needed instruction for their 
daily lives. They were bound by law and custom to fast some- 
times, and they might be quite right in adding voluntary fasts 
sometimes to the fasts of obligation. Christ nowhere blames 
the Pharisees for fasting; it is fasting ostentatiously that is 
condemned. 


VI. 19-VII. 12. The Christian Life in its own working. 


It is possible that the Evangelist has made one of his favourite 
triplets in having three prohibitions in succession: ‘ Lay not up,’ 
etc. (19-34), ‘Judge not’ (vii. 1-5), ‘Give not,’ etc. (vii. 6). 
But the passages differ so greatly in length, that the arrangement 
may be independent of the Evangelist’s predilections. The first 
passage (19-34) has no parallel in Lk.’s report of the Sermon; 
the parallel material is found in four different places in his 
Gospel (xii. 33, 34, Xl. 34-36, xVl. 13, ΣΙ 22-31). We are 
therefore in doubt whether these sixteen verses are part of the 
original Sermon. They fit in very well with the main theme,— 
the requirements for those who enter the Kingdom, or the 
elements of the ideal Christian character: to know where true 
riches can be found is essential to true holiness. On the other 
hand, the transition from fasting to treasures in heaven is abrupt, 
and something may be missed out. But the only thing that is 
of importance is secure; we are here dealing with what at some 
time or other was uttered by our Lord. 

Two links of connexion with what precedes have been 
suggested. The warning against the worldly-mindedness of 
hypocritical almsgiving, prayer, and fasting is followed by a 
warning against the worldly-mindedness of heaping up riches ; 


106 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 19-28 


and in the history of the Church avarice and empty religious 
profession have often gone together from the days of Hophni 
and Phinehas onwards. Again, the promise of a reward from 
the Father which seeth in secret leads to a discussion of the 
acquiring and storing such reward. ‘There is yet another pos- 
sible connexion. Christ has been warning His hearers against 
Pharisaic hypocrisy. He now warns them against another vice 
which was common among the Pharisees, that of avarice (Lk. 
xvi. 14). The Pharisees were often wealthy, and believed their 
wealth to be a reward for their zeal in keeping the Law. They 
regarded themselves as conspicuous evidence of the connexion 
between righteousness and riches; and Christ, having shown 
that their righteousness was no true righteousness, here goes on 
to show that their wealth is no true riches. A Christian must 
look elsewhere for his treasure. 

The passage has three marked divisions: the heavenly 
treasure (19-21), the single eye (22, 23), the banishment of 
anxiety (24-34). 

The warning supposes a simple state of society, in which 
wealth is hoarded in the house and consists partly of rich apparel. 
The house also has mud walls, which can be dug through by 
thieves. The contrast with heavenly treasure is obvious, and 
this is one reason for preferring heavenly treasure! But there 
is another reason, introduced by an important ‘for’: ‘For where 
thy treasure is, there will thy heart be also.’ We must store our 
wealth above, in order that our hearts may be drawn upwards. 
The two act and react upon one another; where our treasure is, 
there will our hearts be; and where our hearts are, there is our 
treasure. In the Psalms of Solomon we have ὃ ποιῶν δικαιοσύνην 
θησαυρίζει ζωὴν ἑαυτῷ παρὰ κυρίῳ (ix. 9).3 

The metaphor of the eye in a moral sense (22) was common 
among the Jews, a good eye signifying a generous soul, and an 
evil eye a grasping and grudging one (Deut. xv. 9; Prov. xxiii. 6, 
Xxvlil. 22). The way to keep the eye of the soul healthy is 
generous almsgiving (Tob. iv. 7). To be miserly is to distort, 
and at last to blind, the eye of the soul, so that it can no longer 
see the true value of things (Hatch, Zssays in Libl. Grk. p. 80). 


1“ Truly a good man, say the Rabbis, was King Munhaz. During a 
famine he gave to the poor the treasury of his father. His relations upbraided 
him: What thy father saved, thou hast thrown away. Munhaz answered: 
My father laid up treasure on earth; I gather it in the heavens. My father 
hoarded it where hands might steal; I have placed it beyond the reach of 
human hands. My father saved money ; I have saved life. My father saved 
for others; I save for myself. My father saved for this world; I save for 
the next” (Talmud). Comp. Tob. iv. 7-9. 

“In the Testaments we again have a parallel: ποιήσατε δικαιοσύνην ἐπὶ 
τῆς γῆς, ἵνα εὕρητε ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (L.ev2 xill. 5). 


VI. 28, 24] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 107 


Here, ‘single’ (ἁπλοῦς) means ‘free from distortion,’ and hence 
‘liberal’? (comp. 2 Cor. viii. 2, ix. 11, 13; Rom. xii. 8; Eph. 
vi. 5; Col. iii. 22).! But the spiritual eye may be distorted and 
darkened in other ways than by avarice,—by prejudice, or super- 
stition. Jamais on ne fait le mal si pleinement que quand on le 
fait par conscience (Pascal). 

‘How great is ‘he darkness !’ (τὸ σκότος πόσον) possibly refers 
to the original condition of the soul before that which ought to 
have illuminated came. Some Latin texts have ips@ ‘enebre 
guante, which seems to imply this meaning, while others have 
simply ¢enebre guante. If the opportunity for illumination has 
been without effect, how hopeless must the darkness become! 
If that which ought to convey light is darkened, that which is by 
nature dark must be dark indeed. 

The next verse (24) connects the subject of the single eye 
with that of freedom from anxiety by pointing out the absorbing 
character of the vice of avarice. ‘No man can be a slave 
(δουλεύειν) to two masters.’ One or other will be his owner and 
have absolute control over him, and all other claims on his 
service will be entirely excluded.? Avarice is the most exacting 
of all vices ; it is never off its guard, and it never relaxes its hold. 
Sights which make even the hardened sinner compassionate for 
a brief space, make the miser draw his purse-strings the tighter. 
The claims, not only of relations, friends, and country, but even 
of honour, comfort, and health, are disregarded, when money is 
at stake. Mammon? is here personified as the rival of God, and 
all experience shows that he who has allowed himself to become 
its slave can serve no one else; least of all can he devote himself 
to the service of Him who claims exclusive service. Devotion to 
the service of money is the ‘covetousness which is idolatry’ 
(Col. iii. 5). But neither here nor elsewhere is the Jossession of 
wealth condemned: it is being enslaved to riches that is fatal, 
and to possess great riches without being enslaved is not easy. 


1Comp. πορευόμενος ἐν ἁπλότητι ὀφθαλμῶν : and πορεύεται ἐν ἁπλότητι 
ψυχῆς. . . μὴ ἐπιδεχόμενος ὀφθαλμοὺς πονηρούς (/ssachar iii. 4, iv. 6); also 
ὁ yap ἀγαθὸς ἄνθρωπος οὐκ ἔχει σκοτεινὸν ὀφθαλμόν, ἐλεεῖ yap πάντας, κἂν 
ἁμαρτωλοὶ ὦσιν (Benjamin iv. 2). 

2 Comp. δυσὶ yap πάθεσιν ἐναντίοις δουλεύει, καὶ Θεῷ ὑπακοῦσαι οὐ δύναται 
ie ge xviii. 6) ; and, for the use of ἀντέχεσθαι in a similar antithesis, ‘‘the 

evil will flee from you and the Angels will cleave to you”—dv0éfovra 
ὑμῶν (Naphtali viii. 4). 

3 μαμωνᾶς seems to be the correct spelling and accentuation, but the 
derivation is uncertain. Augustine says: /ucrum Punice mammon dicitur: 
sed qui servit mammonea, {1 utigue servit, qui magistratus hujus seculi a 
Domino dicitur (De Serm. Dom. 11. xiv. 47); where the translation of ὁ τοῦ 
κόσμου τουτοῦ ἄρχων should be noticed. The Vulgate has princeps hujus 
mundi. Comp. injustitie enim autorem et dominatorem totius seculi num- 
mum scimus omnes (Tert. Adv. Marc. iv. 33). 


108 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VI. 25-34 


Wealth is a trust, not an absolute property, an instrument, not 
anend. It is to be used, not for selfish enjoyment, but for the 
well-being of ourselves and others. 

The verses which follow (25-34) teach the duty of trust in 
God’s providential care, and the folly of over-anxiety about 
bodily needs in the future. Covetousness and hoarding spring 
from want of trust in God (Heb. xiii. 5) and end in the servile 
worship of mammon. ‘ Therefore’ (διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν), seeing 
that you must choose between the two, cease to be anxious 
about worldly riches, and devote your affections and energies to 
your heavenly Father. The threefold ‘Be not anxious’ (μὴ 
μεριμνᾶτε, μὴ μεριμνήσητε, 25, 31; 34) does not forbid foresight 
and provision, but the anxiety (μέριμνα) which distracts and 
distresses.! The question, ‘Is not the life more than the food, 
etc.,’ means that we are obliged to leave these more important 
things to God; then why can we not trust Him respecting the 
less important? We had nothing to do with the gift of life, or 
with the formation of our bodies; God determined all that. 
Can we not believe that His interest in us will continue? gui dedit 
animam multo facilius escam esse daturum ?, as Augustine puts it ; 
and he might have put it more strongly. Again, we cannot deter- 
mine the length of the lives which have been given to us. We can 
end them prematurely, but which of us, no matter how anxious 
he is, can add a span to the age allotted to him?? Let us trust 
God for food and ciothing, as we are obliged to trust Him for 
body and life. We are the children of God; we believe that. 
Then do let us believe that He loves us and cares for us, and 
will bless the reasonable provision which we make in order not 
to presume on His bounty. Reasonable, not unreasonable. 
Anxiety about storing up great provision for the future is a subtle 
form of the worship of mammon. It begins with prudent fore- 
sight ; but it too often passes into regarding money as an end in 
itself, and ends in making it a god, and a most tyrannical god. 

It is perhaps right to say that we have three gradations 


1 ¢Be not careful’ in the earlier English Versions was better than ‘take 
no thought’inthe AV. But ‘thought’ meant anxious care in the seventeenth 
century ; I Sam. ix. 5. See Wright, Zhe Bzble Word-Book, p. 598; Davies, 
Bible English, p. 100. 

2 That ἡλικία here means ‘age’ (Jn. ix. 21, 23; Heb. xi. 1:1) and not 
‘stature’ (Lk. xix. 3) seems to be clear from the context, and still more so 
from the context of Lk. xii. 25. No one thinks of adding a czdz¢t to his 
stature, although some try to add an inch. Many are anxious to add as 
much as possible to the length of their lives. ‘Age’ is advocated by Alford, 
De Wette, Meyer, Olshausen, Stier, Tholuck, B. Weiss, Loisy, etc. On 
the other side see Field (O¢zum Norvic. iii. p. 4), Bengel, Fritzsche. If 

‘stature’ be adopted, the thought may be that God’s care makes the infant 
grow several cubits, but no human anxiety can make it grow one cubit. See 
DCG., art. ‘Age,’ 


VI. 88, 84] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 109 


(comme trois échelons successifs, P, Girodon, S. Zuc, p. 342): a 
lesson for all, ‘Beware of avarice’ (24); a rule for disciples, 
‘Seek first the Kingdom’ (33); and a counsel for some, 
‘Sell all and give to the poor’ (xix. 21). And Chrysostom may 
be right when he says that greed for riches destroys more souls 
than the pursuit of pleasures. The former, unlike the latter, 
tightens its grip with increasing years. While the one is often 
recognized as folly, even by those who succumb to it, the other 
is likely to be regarded as wisdom, even by some who are not 
among its victims. The Talmud says: ‘Man is born with his 
hands clenched ; he dies with them wide open. Entering life, he 
desires to grasp everything; leaving the world, all that he 
possessed has slipped away” (Polano, p. 263). Then what folly 
it is to be distracted with anxiety about amassing what must be 
left behind ! 

Here once more we seem to have an arrangement into a 
group of seven. We can count seven arguments against over- 
anxiety about providing for the future. 1. There are more 
important things to think about! 2. Look at the birds, whom 
God feeds. 3. Life cannot be prolonged beyond the allotted 
time. 4. Look at the flowers, whom God clothes. 5. This over- 
anxiety is heathenish. 6. God knows what your needs are. 
7. Sufficient to each day is its evil. Sufficient, but not excessive. 
Each day as it passes, proves that the previous anxiety about it 
was unnecessary, for by God’s help we have got through it. 
Reasonable foresight is of course not forbidden ; Christ Himself 
made provision for the future by means of the bag which Judas 
kept. But trust in God must rule our foresight. ‘Cast thy 
burden (τὴν μέριμνάν cov) upon the Lord, and He will nourish 
thee’ (Ps. lv. 22). 


In ver. 33 we may suspect that both ‘ first’ and ‘ righteousness’ are additions 
made by Mt. Neither is found in Lk. xii. 31; and throughout the Sermon 
‘righteousness’ is emphasised in Mt. (v. 6, 10, 20, vi. 1). In Lk. the 
word is not found, excepting i. 75. And there are considerable variations of 
reading here. EGKLM etc., Syr-Cur. Vulg. have ‘the Kingdom of God 
and His righteousness’ while K has ‘the Kingdom and righteousness of 
God. B has τὴν δικαιοσύνην καὶ βασιλείαν αὐτοῦ, which may mean either 
‘His righteousness and Kingdom’ or ‘righteousness and His Kingdom’ ; 
but the reading is not likely to be original. It looks like a correction to 
place ‘righteousness,’ which is the means of entering the Kingdom, in a 
more logical position. 

Several Fathers quote a saying which may be an adaptation of this verse, 
but which Resch (Agrapha, pp. 111, 112) believes to be unquestionably a 
genuine utterance of Christ. It is given in its fullest form by Origen (De 
Orat. 2; Op. i. p. 197) and by Ambrose (22. i. 36 Ad Horont. 3; Op. viii. 
445): ‘‘ Ask for the great things, and the small shall be added to you. Ask 


1 The introductory διὰ τοῦτο λέγω ὑμῖν (25) is found in Lk, (xii. 22) also, 
but it refers to quite different premises (Wellhausen). 


10 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ VI. 34 


for the heavenly things, and the earthly shall be added to you.” Origen 
expressly attributes the saying to ‘the Saviour,’ and he quotes it several 
times. Clement of Alexandria and Eusebius quote the first half, but Clement 
seems to regard it as derived from Mt. vi. 33 (S¢rom. IV. vi. p. 579). 
Eusebius, like Origen, expressly attributes it to ‘the Saviour.’ Their both 
using this expression looks as if they were quoting from a collection of the 
Saviour’s utterances: Λέγει ὁ Σωτήρ. Clement says simply φησί, and 
Ambrose says Scrzpézne est. 

The Oxyrhynchus Logion ii. is possibly an adaptation of ver. 33. The 
Greek is unusual, but the general sense seems to be clear. λέγει Ἰησοῦς, ἐὰν 
μὴ νηστεύσητε τὸν κόσμον ob μὴ εὕρητε τὴν βασιλείαν τοῦ Θεοῦ" Kal ἐὰν μὴ σαββα- 
τίσητε τὸ σάββατον οὐκ ὄψεσθε τὸν Πατέρα. ““ Jesus saith, Except ye fast to 
the world, ye shall in no wise find the Kingdom of God ; and except ye keep 
the sabbath, ye shall not see the Father.” In the Septuagint we have σαββα- 
τίζειν τὰ σάββατα (Lev. xxiii. 32; 2 Chron. xxvi. 21), but nowhere has such 
a construction as νηστεύειν τὸν κόσμον been found. Grenfell and Hunt, Λόγια 
᾿Ιησοῦ, 1897, pp. 10, 11; Lock and Sanday, 7wo Lectures on the ‘ Sayings of 
Jesus,’ 1897, pp. 19, 20; Resch, Agrapha, p. 68. 

The concluding verse (34) has no parallel in Lk. It may be the Evan- 
gelist’s own comment, either as a summary of the preceding teaching, or an 
addition to make a seventh argument. The paragraph would end more 
forcibly at ver. 33, and the addition does not rise much higher than strong 
common sense. ‘That does not make it unworthy of Christ, but it makes it 
within reach of the Evangelist’s production. It amounts to this. Why 
double your cares by anticipating them? Each day brings its own cares ; 
and it is foolish to add the cares of to-morrow to those of to-day. To-day’s 
burden is increased, without to-morrow’s being made lighter. Allen quotes 
from Sanhedrin 1006: ‘* Trouble not thyself about the trouble of the 
morrow, for thou knowest not what a day brings forth. Perhaps on the 
morrow thou wilt not exist, and so thou wilt have troubled about that 
which does not exist for thee.” See Montefiore, p. 544. 

Characteristic expressions in ch. vi.: ὑποκριτής (2, 5, 16), φαίνεσθαι 
(5, 16, 17), πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐράνιος (9), γενηθήτω (10), θησαυρός (19, 20, 21), 
ἔνδυμα (25, 28), συνάγειν (26). Peculiar to Mt.: ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνοις (14, 26, 
32); peculiar to this chapter: βατταλογεῖν (7), πολυλογία (7), κρυφαῖος (18), 
καταμανθάνειν (28). The word ταμεῖον is peculiar to Mt. (6, xxiv. 26) and Lk. 
(xii. 3, 24). The AV. varies between ‘closet,’ ‘secret chamber,’ and ‘store- 
house’; the RV. has ‘store-chamber,’ Lk. xii. 24, but elsewhere ‘inner 
chamber.’ The Latin renderings vary greatly : cebécelum, cubdle, cellarium, 
prompluartum, promptalia, penetralia, penetrabilia, hospitium, domus. See 
Ronsch, /tala und Vulgata, pp. 32 and 48; DCG., art. ‘Closet.’ 


VII. 1-5. The warning against heaping up riches is followed 
by a warning against criticizing others. It is possible that here 
again, as perhaps in vi. 19-34, Christ is selecting a fault for 
condemnation, because it was common among Pharisaic pro- 
fessors of righteousness, and that this is one of the links of 
connexion.! But in neither case is the condemnation to be 
restricted to any particular class. ‘The love of money is perilous 
to all, and not merely to Pharisees; and so also is the love of 


1 But the warning of Maldonatus (ad Joc.) is constantly to be kept in 
mind: £go jam monut non esse anxie guerendam in Evangelists senten- 
tarum connextonem, guia ves non 60 ordine scribere voluerunt quo facta a 
Christo vel dicte sunt. See the whole passage. 


VII. 1-5] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE [ΠῚ 


passing judgment upon our neighbours. It is possible that our 
Lord is here quoting or alluding to current sayings, similar to 
our proverb about “those who live in glass houses.” The 
Sermon abounds in sayings which have passed into proverbs, 
and which may have been such before Christ uttered them. ‘A 
city set on a hill’ (v. 14). ‘Let not thy left hand know’ (vi. 3). 
‘Where thy treasure is’ (vi. 21). ‘No man can serve two 
masters’ (vi. 24). ‘Is not life more than food?’ (vi. 25). 
‘Sufficient unto the day’ (vi. 34). ‘With what measure ye mete’ 
(vii. 2). ‘Cast not your pearls’ (vii. 6). The broad and the 
narrow way (vii. 13, 14). ‘By their fruits ye shall know them’ 
(vii. 16, 20). The mote and the beam may easily have been 
current. The avoidance of criticisms on oneself is neither 
the only nor the highest motive for abstaining from criticizing 
others. Christ’s warning rises higher than this. Just as the 
forgiveness of others prepares us to receive the forgiveness of 
God, so our condemnation of others prepares the way for His 
condemnation of 5.2 We are using a severe standard, which 
will be disastrous when applied to ourselves. ‘That people are 
paid back in their own measure is a saying which is given in 
different contexts (Mk. iv. 24; Lk. vi. 38) with different meanings. 
Its meaning here is clear: criticism provokes criticism similar 
to itself. 

The parable of the mote and the beam carries us further. 
The censorious temper is unchristian ; it is a violation of the law 
of love. It means that we pay an amount of attention to the 
faults of others which ought to be paid to our own, and that of 
our own faults we have a very inadequate appreciation.’ If we 
knew how worthy of blame we ourselves are, we should be much 
less ready to blame others. No one likes adverse criticism, and 
he who loves his neighbour as himself will be loath, rather than 
eager, to criticize others adversely. And every one who is in 
earnest knows how faulty his own life is, and for this reason will 
be less ready to judge others. Censoriousness reverses all this. 
The man who habitually busies himself with the supposed 
delinquencies of others is not likely to investigate or to realize 
his own grievous offences. And we are all of us prone to 


1 Hence the present imperative, μὴ κρίνετε, ‘ Cease to pass judgment’; as 
if every one transgressed in this way. Contrast the aorist imperatives in 
ver. 6. The mote and the beam are examples of Oriental hyperbole. 

* We have the same thought inthe Testaments: ef τι ἂν ποιήσῃ τῷ πλησίον 
αὐτοῦ, οὕτω Κύριος ποιήσει μετ᾽ αὐτοῦ (Zeb. v. 3). As Loisy points out (Le 
Discours sur la Montagne, p. 114), ‘ Judge not, and ye shall not be judged’ 
is a kind of inversion of the Lex talionis. 

3 In illustration of ἄφες ἐκβάλω, J. H. Moulton quotes from a papyrus of 
the Roman period (0. P. 413), ἄφες ἐγὼ αὐτὴν θρηνήσω (Gram. of N.7T. Gr. 


Ρ. 175). 


112 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ VII. 1-5 


suspect in the conduct of others precisely those faults of which 
we are frequently guilty ourselves. S. James carries us a step 
further, and shows that the self-constituted censor invades the 
judgment-seat of God (iv. τι, 12).2 

But, although we can refrain from expressing unfavourable 
judgments of others, and although we can be charitable in our 
unexpressed judgments, yet there are cases in which the 
judgment, whether expressed or not, must be unfavourable. 
In dealing with others we must take into account what we know 
of their conduct and character. This prudent circumspection 
is specially necessary in the Christian minister. The Gospel has 
to be preached to all, but not to all at the same time or in the 
same way. In many cases an opportunity must be waited for; 
and the hoary sinner will need different treatment from the 
ignorant lad. ‘The preciousness of the preacher’s message makes 
it all the more necessary that he should deliver it with discretion. 
Many are repelled by the tactless way in which they are 
approached, and behave themselves towards holy things as dogs 
or swine, when they might have been won over as sheep. We 
have similar counsel in Proverbs: ‘He who corrects a scoffer 
gets insult, And he who reproves a wicked man, reviling. 
Reprove not a scoffer, lest he hate thee; Reprove a wise man, 
and he will love thee’ (ix. 7,8). ‘Speak not in the ears of a fool; 
For he will despise the wisdom of thy words’ (xxiii. 9; see Toy, 
ad loc.). The verse (6) has no parallel in Lk., and though it 
may be connected with what precedes, yet it seems to have little 
in common with what follows. It has many adaptations, and is 
a basis for the principle of ‘economy’ in the communication of 
religious truth,? and for the protection of sacred rites from 
profanation. ‘‘ Let no one eat or drink of your eucharist, except 
those baptized into the name of the Lord; for as regards this 
the Lord has said, Give not that which is holy to the dogs” 
(Didache 1x. 5). Of heretics who admitted all sorts, even heathen, 
to their services, Tertullian says: ‘That which is holy they will 
cast to the dogs, and pearls (although, to be sure, they are not 
real ones) to swine” (De Prescr. xli). Similar applications are 
frequent in the Fathers, in Cyril of Jerusalem, Athanasius, Basil, 


1 See the Exfpositor’s Bible, ad. loc. pp. 251-260. Here the change from 
© see’ (βλέπει5) to “ perceive’ or ‘notice’ (κατανοεῖς) is required by the figure. 
A man cannot see what is in his own eye, though he may be aware of it and 
consider it. David’s anger against the rich man who had taken the poor 
man’s lamb illustrates the parable of the mote and the beam. He pronounced 
judgment on himself in what he thought was righteous indignation against 
another. 

The Oxyrhynchus Logion is closer to Lk. vi. 42 than to Mt. vii. 5. See 
Grenfell and Hunt, p. Io. 

2 See DCG., art. ‘ Accommodation.’ 


VII. 7-12] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 113 


Gregory Nazianzen, Jerome, αἰ} It is possible that τὸ ἅγιον 
means that which has been offered in sacrifice. 

The exhortation to earnest prayer (7-11) is found in Lk. 
immediately after the parable of the Friend at Midnight 
(xi. 5-13). In both we have present imperatives (αἰτεῖτε, ζητεῖτε, 
κρούετε) : ‘ Continue to ask, seek, knock.’ We are not to cease 
praying, because there is no apparent answer to our prayers. 
The threefold expression gives emphasis to the command, and 
was evidently in the source used by both Evangelists. On the 
other hand, we are not to suppose that the object of persevering 
prayer is to overcome the Father’s unwillingness. His desire 
to help is always there: by perseverance in asking we appropriate 
it. Of the parent’s incredible conduct Lk. has three illustrations, 
adding ‘egg and scorpion’ to ‘bread and stone’ and ‘fish and 
serpent’; but the text there is confused. In each case there is 
a rough resemblance between what the child asks for and the 
parent is supposed to offer. The parent may possibly refuse, 
but will he mock his child with what is useless or harmful ? 2 

‘If ye then, being evil’ (εἰ οὖν ὑμεῖς, πονηροὶ ὄντες). The 
serene, but emphatic manner in which Christ separates Himself 
from His hearers in this particular is very impressive. Lk. is 
still stronger: ‘If ye, being evil from the first, being by nature 
evil’ (πονηροὶ ὑπάρχοντες). We are perhaps not to understand 
wickedness in general as included in ‘ evil,’ but rather the special 
vice of niggardliness, as in the ‘evil eye’ (vi. 23). Those who 
are commonly disposed to be grudging nevertheless make an 
exception in the case of their own children. They do not 
always give exactly what is asked for, for children often ask for 
what is not good for them, but they give, and give what is good. 
Will the heavenly Father do less?* But we must ask for what 
we believe to be in accordance with His will, and we must ask 
in submission to His will (Jas. iv. 3). 

In the Golden Rule (12) the Sermon reaches its climax ; it is 
“the capstone of the whole discourse.” ‘The ‘therefore’ with 
which it is introduced does not fit on very well to the preceding 


ΔῈ is probable that both ‘dogs’ and ‘swine’ are the nominatives of 
‘trample,’ ‘turn’ and ‘rend.’ But some would make ‘ dogs’ the subject of 
‘turn and rend,’ and ‘swine’ the subject of ‘trample.’ To the Jew both 
swine and dogs were unclean. See Tristram, Wat. Hist. of the Bible, p. 79. 

2 It is suggested that ‘serpent’ (ὄφις) means an eel, which might not be 
eaten: ‘ Whatsoever hath no fins nor scales in the waters, that is an abomina- 
tion unto you’ (Lev. xi. 12). We cannot safely infer from this passage or 
xix. 29 that several of the Apostles were married and had children; but it 
is not improbable. Comp. 1 Cor. ix. 5. We know that Peter was married 
(viii. 14). 

8 ««Fven when the gates of prayer are shut in heaven, those of tears are 
open” (Talmud): note the contrast between ἄνθρωπος (9) and ὁ ἐν τοῖς 
οὐρανοῖς (11). 


8 


ΤΙ GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ VII. 12,13 


verse: perhaps it looks back to vii. 1, 2. In Lk. it follows what 
is parallel to v. 42, which makes a very suitable conjunction. 
The negative form of the precept, ‘ Do that to no man which thou 
hatest’ (Tob. iv. 15), seems to have been common among the 
Rabbis. It is found in Isocrates, in Philo, and in the Stoics.!_ It 
need not rise much above calculating prudence, which avoids 
provoking retaliation ; and it cannot rise above mere abstention 
from inflicting pain. At its best, it falls immeasurably short 
of the positive rule given by Christ. The rule has the widest 
possible sweep: ‘ All things whatsoever ye would that men should 
do unto you’; which in Lk. is expressed by ‘ exactly as’ (καθώς). 
It is of course assumed that men wish to have done to them what 
is really good for them: wishes for what is pleasant but harmful 
are not included. The concluding words, ‘For this is the Law 
and the Prophets,’ look back tov. 17. So far from destroying 
the Law and the Prophets, Christ preaches a doctrine which sums 
up all their teaching respecting the duty of man to man. What 
we desire from our neighbours is love,—true, constant, discerning 
love: and it is from our experience of our own needs in this 
respect that we can discern how much love of the same kind 
we owe to others. See Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 20. The 
omission of ‘all’ or ‘the whole’ before ‘the Law’ here, and its 
insertion xxl. 40 (ὅλος ὃ νόμος), is very intelligible. Here only 
the love of man to his neighbour is under consideration, while 
there both the love of man to God and the love of man to 
man are prescribed. 

It was probably a new thing to Christ’s hearers that the 
Prophets should be placed on a level with the Law, and this was 
frequently done by Him: v. 17, x.) 13, xxti/4o> Lk. ’xvi-m6, 


xxiv. 44. The combination is not found in Mk. or Jn., and | 


Mk. does not mention the Law, which to his readers had little 
interest. 


VII. 13-23. Exhortation to enter the Christian Life, 
avoiding False Guides and False Professions. 


The Epilogue to the Sermon, which begins here, contains 
three pairs of contrasts, the broad and the narrow ways, the 
good ana the bad trees, the well-built and the ill-built houses. 
The two first pairs belong to this section. 

We may connect the charge to enter the narrow way with 
the Golden Rule by the thought that to carry the rule into effect 


1 Τὸ is also found in some texts of Acts xv. 28, as to what was to be 
required of Gentile converts : guacungue τοῦδ fiert non vultis, alit ne feceritzs 
(Iren. Ill. xii. 14; Cypr. Zest. ΠΙ, a ὅσα μὴ θέλετε ἑαυτοῖς γείνεσθαι ἑτέρῳ 
μὴ ποιεῖν (Cod. D). 


VII. 13-23] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE IIs 


is indeed a hard matter. But in Lk. (xiii. 23, 24) this charge is 
given in a very different connexion, viz. in answer to the question 
whether those who are in the way of salvation (οἱ σωζόμενοι) are 
few. The gate (Mt.) or door (Lk.) is that which leads to the 
Kingdom, and we have thus returned to the thought with which 
the Sermon began,—admission to the Kingdom (v. 3).} The 
way to it is the righteousness which is sketched in the Beatitudes. 
We might turn this charge into a Beatitude. Blessed are they 
that seek the way of righteousness, for they shall escape destruc- 
tion, or they shall find the Kingdom. Many enter the broad 
way, because it requires no self-discipline, and therefore seems 
to promise greater freedom. And its popularity makes it easy 
enough to find. The way that leads to life is so little trodden, 
on account of its apparent difficulty, that it is not easy to find.? 
This fact has often impressed thinkers in their classifications of 
mankind ; knaves and fools are many, while good and wise men 
are few. ‘There be many created, but few shall be saved’ 
(2 Esdr. vill. 3; comp. vii. 3-9). But for the ignorance and 
folly of the majority, the proportions would be reversed. The 
restrictions of the narrow way are not infringements of liberty 
but protections against evil: they result in a service which is 
perfect freedom. Indeed Christ Himself is the Way, the 
Messiah who is the bringer of freedom. In this world there 
must be restrictions, there must be a yoke and a burden; but 
the yoke is easy, and the burden light,—far lighter than that 
which accumulates on the broad way. By ‘life’ we are to 
understand ‘eternal life,’ ‘the life that is life indeed,’ which 
later Jewish literature commonly described as the ‘life of the 
age to come.’® But the difference between Jewish teaching 
and Christ’s is this, that eternal life is to be won in no other 
way than by righteousness in this life: descent from Abraham 
is of no value. See Dalman, Words of Jesus, pp. 156-162. 

In the Book of the Secrets of Enoch (xxx. 15) God is repre- 
sented as placing the two ways before Adam. ‘And I gave 
him his will, and I showed him the two ways, the light and the 
darkness. And I said to him, ‘This is good, and this is evil’; 
that I should know whether he has love for Me or hate; that 

1 Lk. omits ‘the way’ (ἡ ὁδός), and his entrance is the door of a house; 
while that in Mt. is the gate ofa city. But ἡ πύλη here may be an insertion 
(8, Old Latin and many Fathers omit), and we should read: ‘for wide and 
broad is the way.’ 

* In the Πίναξ or Tabula of Cebes (xvi.), who was a disciple of Socrates, 
it is said: ‘‘ Dost thou not see a little door, and a way in front of the door, 
which is not much crowded, but the travellers are few? That is the way 
that leadeth to the true instruction.” But the Jewish two ways may be found 
Jer. xxi. 8; Ps. i. 6; Deut. xxx. 19. 

8 Comp. xix. 16. This use of ‘life’ (ζωή) is not common in the Synoptics, 
but is very frequent in Jn. (iii. 36, v. 24, 29, 40, vi. 33, 35, 51, etc.). 


[16 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [VII 15-20 


he should appear in his race as loving Me.” Comp. ‘ Your God 
proveth you, to know whether ye love the Lord your God’ 
(Deut. xiii. 3). It is man’s /ove that is desired by God. It is 
by man’s fault that the good way now seems hard, and the evil 
way easy. See Polano, Zhe Talmud, p. 281. 

If we want to find the right way, we must beware of watrust- 
worthy guides (15-20). In this context, ‘false prophets’ can 
hardly refer to any but Scribes and Pharisees; but the saying 
is of far wider application. By the ‘sheep’s clothing’ we are 
not to understand the usual dress of a Prophet, which does not 
seem to have been of wool but of hair (Zech. xiii. 4). It is a 
symbol for an innocent, lamb-like appearance, craftily assumed 
for an evil purpose. ‘Wolves’ for the enemies of God’s flock 
is an Old Testament metaphor (Ezek. xx. 275 ΖΕΡΗΣ πὸ 3); 
and they are called ‘ravening’ (ἅρπαγες), because they are greedy 
of gain and of power. Their hypocrisy is so consummate, that 
they are difficult to detect. Nevertheless, their conduct is sure 
to betray them. 

The illustration from good and worthless trees is found again 
in Jas. iii. 11, 12, where we probably have echoes of Christ’s 
teaching as remembered by the Lord’s brother. Christ Himself 
seems to have used the illustration more than once (xil. 33), 
and He was perhaps using one that was current (comp. Gal. v. 
22). Arrian, the pupil of Epictetus, writing about a century 
later, asks, ‘‘ How can a vine grow, not vinewise, but olivewise, 
or an olive, on the other hand, not olivewise, but vinewise? It 
is impossible” (ii. 20). And Seneca says that evil is not derived 
from good, any more than a fig-tree from an olive. ‘Like root, 
like fruit” is the teaching of common experience (comp. Gal. 
vi. 7), and the false teacher will in time reveal his τοοί. In any 
case his doom is certain (19, ill. 10). 

Verse 15 has no parallel in Lk., and it is manifest that the test of fruit- 
bearing is one which is applicable to all persons and is not confined to 
prophets. That there will be false prophets is among the predictions 
included in the apocalyptical discourse in Mk. (xiii. 22). As we know 
from the Didache (xi. 3-12) and other sources, abuses in connexion with 
the itinerant prophets began very early in the primitive Church: see Schaff’s 
edition, p. 69. W ellhausen remarks: Dée fahrenden Propheten miissen fiir 
die christliche Gemeinde eine wahre Landplage gewesen sein (p. 33). It is 
possible that Mt. knew from experience that our Lord’s test needed to be 


employed in the case of such people, and the test is in marked contrast to 
that which is suggested in the Dzdache. 


But we have not only to beware of the misleading which 
comes from others, we must be still more on our guard against 


1 The illustration does not tell us ἄστυ character is formed. Man forms 
his own character, a tree does not. But the character, however it be formed, 
shows itself in the fruit, 


| 
| 
' 


VII. 21-23] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 117 


the misleading which comes from ourselves: false professions 
may be worse than false prophets (21-23). We may deceive 
ourselves as to the sincerity of our expressions of devotion to 
Christ. They may be frequent, and even fervent, and yet be 
quite worthless. ‘They may have been so fervent that they have 
influenced others for good, have cast out demons, and produced 
wonderful results. In spite of all that, they may be worthless, 
because they have lacked reality: they have not been done in 
the spirit of that love, without which all profession, even if it be 
made ‘with the tongues of Angels,’ is no better than ‘sounding 
brass’ (1 Cor. xiii. 1). The outward ascription of honour to 
Christ is worth little, unless there is also inward loyalty to His 
will. The threefold repetition of ‘in Zy Name,’ which in the 
Greek is in all three cases placed first with emphasis, shows that 
they could claim to have paid outward homage to Jesus as the 
Messiah.! And this of course was not wrong. The saying of 
‘Lord, Lord’ is not condemned ; but the mere saying of it will 
not secure entrance into the Kingdom. Orthodoxy without love, 
without the will to do the Father’s will, is of no avail. 

‘Then will I s7ofess unto them’ is said with manifest reference 
to their profession, although the word is not used of their claim. 
They have professed the closest intimacy with Him, and have 
made free and frequent use of His Name: but He disclaims all 
acquaintance with them. They do not possess the character- 
istics which He can recognize. ‘Depart from Me, (all) ye 
workers of iniquity’ is from Ps. vi. 9; and it is worth noting 
that Mt. retains the word used in the Septuagint, ‘lawlessness’ 
(ἀνομία), which represents the Jewish point of view, while Lk. 
(xiii. 27) has ‘iniquity’ or ‘injustice’ (ἀδικία), which represents 
the Greek point of view.2, Wickedness in general is what is 
meant. Separation from Christ is the penalty, and the sentence 
of banishment is pronounced by Christ Himself. Once more 
we must remark with what royal assurance Jesus speaks of His 
own authority as the final Judge of mankind, and implies that 
banishment from His presence is a punishment of the utmost 
gravity. And it is also to be noted what it is that He here 
condemns as ‘iniquity.’ Not acts of fraud, or violence, or 


1 Lk. (xiii. 26) has ‘we did eat and drink zz Thy presence’ (ἐνώπιόν cov). 
Justin Martyr (Afo/. i. 16; Z7ry. 76) mixes the two passages: ‘ Did we not 
eat and drink zz 7hy mame?’ Origen (Ce/s. ii. 49) does the same. It is 
clear that this passage cannot refer to the beginning of Christ’s Ministry. 
There were then no people who hypocritically professed to be devoted to 
Him. Bengel adds to these professions, ‘‘ We have written commentaries on 
the Old and New Testaments ; we have preached splendid sermons.” 

2 No other Evangelist uses ἀνομία: Mt. has it again xiii. 41, xxiii, 28, 
xxiv. 12 ; and in xiii. 41, as here, it is in connexion with the Day of Judgment. 
This revelation of Himself as Judge cannot belong to His early teaching. 


118 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [ὙἹ]. 24-27 


sensuality; but the religious professions of those who know 
and do not practise; who can see, and perhaps feel, the beauty 
of His teaching and character, and can inspire others with a 
love for it which has no place in themselves. It is “the piety 
of sentiment” that is thus condemned (P. Girodon, S. Lue, 


p- 237): 


VII. 24-29. The Judgments which await the Members 
of the Kingdom. 


In both reports of the Sermon the parable of the Wise and 
foolish Builders forms the impressive conclusion, and the most 
impressive phrase in it is the repeated and very comprehensive 
introduction to each half of it: ‘Zvery one which heareth these 
words of AZzve.’1 The well-being or ruin of every one of those 
who hear what has just been spoken is to depend upon whether 
they obey or not. The claim is tremendous, and it is made, as 
before, with such serene confidence, as of a Teacher who has no 
shade of doubt as to His own authority, or as to the supreme 
importance to His hearers of the message which He brings. 
And this enormous claim is made without argument or 
production of credentials: quiet assertion is the only instrument 
that is used: ‘Zsay to you.’ The Carpenter of Nazareth stands 
before the whole race of mankind and tells them that He has 
laid down principles of conduct for the guidance of every one of 
them, and that they will neglect His precepts at their peril. He 
“stood forth as a Legislator, not as a commentator, and 
commanded and prohibited, and repealed, and promised, on 
His own bare word.” And it is a remarkable thing that so many 
ef those who would regard Him as only the best of human 
teachers, nevertheless admit the majestic authority of His 
teaching (see Maclaren, ad /oc.). 

Throughout this epilogue to the Sermon (13-27), as else- 
where, Jesus divides mankind into two classes and no more; 
either on the narrow or on the broad way ; either a good tree or 
a corrupt one; either a wise or a foolish builder ;? in a word, 
either for Christ or against Him. It may be very hard, in most 


1 The parable is an expansion of Prov. x. 25: ‘When the whirlwind 
passeth, the wicked is no more: But the righteous is an everlasting founda- 
tion.” Comp. Prov. i. 26-33, xii. 7, xiv. 11; and see Toy in each place. 

2 As in the parable of the Ten Virgins, it is the wisdom and folly of the 
agents that is insisted upon, rather than their religious character. This is 
frequent in Christ’s teaching and in Scripture generally. It is often more 
easy to judge of wisdom and folly ; and by many people this point of view is 
more readily appreciated than the moral one. In Lk. there are no adjectives 
applied to the builders, neither. φρόνιμος nor μωρός, which are the epithets 
used of the Wise and Foolish Virgins. Both words are more common in 
Mt. than elsewhere in the N.T. 


VII. 24-28] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 119 


cases, for us to decide to which class offer people belong ; there 
seem to be endless gradations, without a decisive line anywhere. 
And it is our wisdom to assume that all, about whom any doubt 
is possible (that is, the enormous majority), are on the right side 
of the line, wherever the line may be. God knows, and we 
leave all that flows from that knowledge to Him. But about 
ourselves, each one of us knows, not indeed as well as He does 
(far from it), but sufficiently well to form a judgment on which to 
act. Do we know that we are trying to live according to the 
Sermon on the Mount? If not, the warning about the Foolish 
Builder is for us. 

The metaphor of building is specially appropriate. The man 
is not pitching a tent for a few hours, or at most for a few days, 
with the probability of being able to move it in case of danger, 
but building a house to dwell in permanently, with the certainty 
that danger must arise sometimes. And that is what we are 
employed upon here: each one is building up his character,— 
that character which is the one thing which he can take with 
him, which he must take with him, into the other world. And 
the choice which he has is not between building and not building 
(he must build some kind of character), but between building 
well and building foolishly. And the only way to build well is 
to build upon a rock, the rock of Christ’s teaching and Christ’s 
example. But Divine instruction, intended for building up, 
must, if neglected, result in disastrous ruin.! ‘Great was the 
fall thereof’ does not mean that the building was a large one, 
but that the whole edifice fell (or ‘fell 7x,’ συνέπεσεν, as Lk. says), 
so that the ruin was complete. The warning applies to small 
characters as well as great, to the humblest disciples as well as 
to Apostles; and the whole audience is left with the crash of 
the unreal disciple’s house sounding in their ears. ‘When Jesus 
ended these words’ it was ‘the mu/titudes’ who ‘ were astonished 
at His teaching’ ;? and, according to both reports, the last word 
which fell upon their ears was ‘great’: ‘the fall thereof was 
great.’ 


The formula, ‘It came to pass when Jesus ended’ (ἐγένετο ὅτε ἐτέλεσεν ὁ 
Ἰησοῦς), occurs after all the five great discourses in Mt. (vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, 
xix. I, xxvi. I). This produces the impression that the Evangelist intends us 
to understand that, in each case, all the words in the preceding discourse 
were uttered at one and the same time; whereas it is almost certain that in 
each case the discourse is a compilation. With regard to this difficulty we 
may choose one of these three alternatives. (1) Mt. thought that the time at 
1 “ Rabba said: Holy Writ does not tell us that to study God’s commands 
shows a good understanding, but to do them. We must learn, however, 
before we can perform ; and he who acts contrary through life to the teaching 
of the Most High had better never have been born” (Talmud). 

3 For the meaning of ἐξουσία see Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, 1562 ff. 


120 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [VII. 28, 29 


which the sayings were delivered was of no importance, and that he was quite 
free to assign any time that he pleased to them. They were the words of the 
Messiah ; that was all that was important : an Evangelist might arrange them 
as he found convenient, or thought most effective for his purpose. (2) Mt. 
had no intention of fixing any times for these five collections of sayings ; in 
using this formula he was merely marking the conclusion of a particular 
section of the Gospel. (3) The sayings had already been collected into set 
discourses in the sources which he used, and he himself believed that each 
had been uttered as a whole at the time indicated. In the last case, the 
formula, ‘It came to pass when Jesus ended,’ may not be the Evangelist’s 
own remark, but may have come from the source. It is in favour of this that 
the expression ‘it came to pass when’ (ἐγένετο ὅτε) occurs nowhere else in 
Mt., but only in these five passages (see Hawkins, Hore Syn. pp. 132 f.). 

For the great impression which Christ’s teaching made upon His hearers 
comp. Xill, 545 xxl. 22. 33; Mk i. 22, vi. 2; xi 18» (Eko riv. 22,652); 
Jn. vii. 15, 46. 


With the words, ‘were astonished at His teaching,’! Mt. 
returns to the narrative of Mk. (i. 22), into which he has 
inserted three chapters. He follows Mk. in saying that it was 
the authoritative manner of teaching that so amazed them. The 
Rabbis were accustomed to quote some authority for what they 
said, either Scripture, or tradition, or the utterance of some 
teacher of repute. Christ spoke on His own authority, an 
authority which He sometimes said that He had received from 
the Father (xxviii. 18; Jn. v. 27, x. 18, xvii. 2), but which He 
seems, as a rule, to have allowed to. make itself felt without 
support or justification. He habitually taught (ἦν διδάσκων) in 
this unusual manner; and, while it was often resented by those 
who taught in the traditional way, it made the people very 
attentive to hear Him, they ‘hung upon Him, listening’ (Lk. 
xix. 48). But neither this nor His miracles caused Him to be 
commonly recognized as the Messiah. The Baptist’s witness to 
His Messiahship had not been heard by very many, and had 
been perhaps forgotten. The multitudes regarded Him rather 
as a great Prophet, either a new one or one of the old ones risen 
again. 

Justin M. (7Z7y. 35) gives as sayings of Christ two different quotations of 
ver. 15, in the first case mixing it with xxiv. 5, and between these quotations 
he gives as a saying of Christ what seems to be a reminiscence of 1 Cor. 
xi. 18, 19. ‘‘For He said: Many shall come in My name, outwardly clad 
in skins of sheep, but inwardly they are ravening wolves. And: Zhere shall 
be schisms and heresies. And: Beware of false prophets, who shall come to 
you, outwardly clad in skins of sheep, but within they are ravening wolves.” 
In the Clementine Homilies (xvi. 21) we have a similar mixture of Matthew 
and Corinthians quoted as a saying of Christ. ‘‘ For there will be, as the 
Lord said, false apostles (2 Cor. xi. 13), false prophets, heresies (1 Cor. 
xi. 19), lustings for rule” (φιλαρχίαι, frequent in Plutarch). See small print 
at the end of ch. xxiv. 


1 The force of the imperfect, ἐξεπλήσσοντο, is that they were more and 
more amazed, their astonishment went on and on. 


VIII. 1] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 121 


*Ravening wolves in sheep’s clothing’ is the first of the stern 
metaphors directed against the Pharisees which have been 
preserved by Mt. alone. Comp. ‘blind guides’ (xv. 14, xxiii. 
16, 24), and ‘whited sepulchres, outwardly beautiful, but full 
of all uncleanness’ (xxiii. 27). Other graphic traits of these 
hypocrites are their ‘sounding a trumpet before them’ when 
they give alms (vi. 2), their ‘laying heavy burdens’ on others and 
not stirring a finger to remove them (xxiii. 4), and their ‘straining 
out a gnat,’ while they ‘swallow a camel’ (xxiii. 24): and all 
these are given by Mt. alone. 


Ch. vii. is not very full of expressions which are characteristic of Mt. 
We have καὶ ἰδού (4), ὑποκριτής (5), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (11, 21), 
ἔνδυμα (15), σαπρός (17, 18), φρόνιμος (24), μωρός (26). Peculiar to Mt.: ἡ 
βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν ; peculiar to this chapter: πλατύς (13), εὐρύχωρος (13), 
βροχή (25, 27). 


VIII. 1-IX. 34. Πμείγαίίογς of the Messiah’s Work. 
Typical Miracles. 


Mt. omits the healing of the demoniac in the synagogue at 
Capernaum (Mk. i. 23-28; Lk. iv. 33-36), and transfers to the 
first place the healing of a leper, which Mk. places later, but 
without saying when it took place (i. 40-45; Lk. v. 12-16). 
No doubt Mt. had reasons for this change, but they are not 
obvious. The leper’s act of worship, and extraordinary strength 
of faith may have seemed to the Evangelist more suitable for 
a first detailed account of one of Christ’s works of mercy. More- 
over, Christ’s charge to the healed leper, to go and show himself 
to the priest and offer what Moses commanded, is an example 
of His fulfilling and not destroying the Law (v.17). But it is 
clear that the leper was not cleansed in the presence of ‘great 
multitudes’ (viii. 1). In that case, the charge to him to ‘tell 
no man’ would have been out of place. But before examining 
any of these illustrations of Christ’s miracles the following 
weighty words are worthy of consideration. 

“The historian who tries to construct a reasoned picture 
of the Life of Christ finds that he cannot dispense with miracles. 
He is confronted with the fact that no sooner had the life of 
Jesus ended in apparent failure and shame, than the great body 
of Christians passed over at once to the fixed belief that He 
was God. By what conceivable process could the men of that 
day have arrived at such a conclusion, if there had been nothing 
in His life to distinguish it from that of ordinary men? He 
did not work the kind of miracles which they expected. But 
this makes it all the more necessary that there must have 
been something about the life which ‘hey could recognize as 


122 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 1-4 


supernatural and divine. Eliminate miracles from the career 
of Jesus, and the belief of Christians, from the first moment 
that we have undoubted contemporary evidence of it (say 
A.D. 50), becomes an insoluble enigma” (Sanday, Outlines, 
ΡΡ. 113, 114). 

‘“We cannot separate the wonderful life, or the wonderful 
teaching, from the wonderful works. ‘They involve and inter- 
penetrate and presuppose each other, and form in their insoluble 
combination one harmonious picture” (Illingworth, Dvvine 
Immanence, Pp. 90). 

To those who believe that Jesus Christ was what He claimed 
to be, that is, to those who believe in the Incarnation, there is 
no difficulty about miracles. ‘They are the natural works of 
‘a supernatural Person. If He was not supernatural, then 
difficulty arises. But in that case we tear up the New 
Testament, and the history of the Christian Church becomes 
inexplicable. 

In the summary of Christ’s wonderful works of healing 
given as an introduction to the account of His ministry (iv. 24) 
no mention is made of cleansing lepers, and we are probably to 
understand that this narrative (vill. 2-4) refers to the first znstance 
of Christ cleansing a leper. In that case the man’s faith was 
all the more remarkable. Leprosy was believed to be incurable 
by human means ;! and, if the man had never heard of a cure, 
his ‘Thou canst make me clean’ exhibits marvellous trust in 
Christ’s ower. ‘If Thou wilt’ looks as if he had less trust in 
Christ’s goodness; but it perhaps means no more than that he 
thought himself unworthy of such a boon. His ‘worshipping’ 
Him perhaps meant no more than special reverence to a Prophet, 
or was preparatory to asking a great boon, but it may have 
indicated something more. All three Evangelists mention the 
prostration, but each in a different way. ‘ Worship’ (xpockvvety) 
is a favourite word with Mt., who first uses it of the adoration 
of the Magi (ii. 2, 8, 11, iv. 9, 10, viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, etc.). 
It is rare in Mk. and Lk., but common in Jn., who perhaps 
always uses it of the worship of a Divine Person. It well 
expresses the attitude which befits all who come to the Messiah 
for the blessings of His healing power; and this act of worship 
—so different from the behaviour of the demoniac in the 
synagogue—may have been another reason for Mt.’s placing this 

1 Tt has been contended (Wright, S¢. Luke, p. 148) that ‘‘ Biblical leprosy 
was a mild skin disease, never fatal,” quite different from modern leprosy. 
But what we call leprosy was known then. Other diseases of the skin did 
not make a man ceremonially unclean ; and how could a mild skin disease be 
regarded as (in a very special way) a Divine visitation? Ps. li. 7 points to 


leprosy as symbolical in its ravages to sin. See Hastings’ DJZ., art. 
‘ Leprosy.’ 


VIII. 1-4} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 123 


miracle first in his three triplets of specimens of the Messiah’s 
mighty works.! 

Mk. mentions that Christ was ‘moved by compassion’ 
(σπλαγχνισθείς), which implies that the man’s sufferings were 
great, and ‘the beloved physician’ tells us that the man was 
‘full of leprosy.’ All three have the Hebraistic amplification 
that Christ ‘stretched out His hand’ to touch him, which Weiss 
strangely explains as ‘‘in order to prevent the contact with the 
unclean and contagious disease.” Is it credible that Jesus 
was afraid of being infected? Would azy one keep the man 
at arm’s length for fear of infection, and yet touch him? The 
outstretched hand is the expression of the compassion (xiv. 31), 
and is the answer to the leper’s timid ‘if Thou wilt.’ It confirms 
his faith in Christ’s power and assures him of His goodness, and 
thus completes the preparation of the sufferer’s mind for the 
cleansing. The healing touch follows, and ‘straightway his 
leprosy was cleansed.’ All three preserve the ‘straightway,’ for 
the sudden cure of such a malady was one of the astounding 
features of the miracle. All three also mention that Christ 
touched the leper, which involved becoming ceremonially 
unclean. But this result is not certain. Lk. says that the 
man was ‘full of leprosy’; and, by a curious provision of the 
Law, if ‘the leprosy cover all the skin of him that hath the 
plague, then the priest shall pronounce him clean’ (Lev. xiii. 
12, 13). Yet what follows indicates that this leper was not thus 
exempt. We may conclude, therefore, that Jesus touched the 
leper on the same principle as that on which He healed on the 
Sabbath. The law of charity is above the ceremonial law, and 
the touch was necessary to assure the sufferer of Christ’s absolute 
sympathy and readiness to help. 

Perhaps the touch was also necessary for the sake of the 
millions who were to read of this cleansing. No mora/ pollution 
can be so great as to make Christ shrink from contact with 
a sinner, who comes to Him with a desire to be freed from his 
plague, and with the belief that He has the power to free him. 
Christ’s miracles are parables. That was part of their purpose 
when they were wrought, and it is their chief meaning to us. 
There seems to be nothing unreasonable in the thought that 
some of the details were selected, not because they were 
essential to the wonderful works, but because of their spiritual 
significance. 

Christ’s. charge to the cleansed leper: ‘see thou tell no man ; 
but go thy way, show thyself to the priest, and offer the gift that 


1 Mk, (i. 41) has no ‘Lord’ (Κύριε) in the leper’s address; but both Mt. 
and Lk. (v. 12) insert it. It is common in the Egyptian papyri, in the sense 
of ‘ my lord,’ or ‘ sir’ (Abbott, Johannine Grammar, 2680). 


124 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [ VIII. 4 


Moses commanded,’ has been variously explained. Mk. tells us 
that it was given with great strictness (ἐμβριμησάμενος), as 
something that Christ regarded as urgent.1 Perhaps the 
principal reason was to ensure that the man did not assume 
that his miraculous cleansing dispensed him from obedience to 
the law. But Christ may also have wished to preserve the man 
from unhealthy boasting about the wonderful cure, and the 
people from being excited to religious or political fanaticism 
(Jn. vi. 15); and both these motives were probably present in 
other cases in which Christ enjoined silence on those whom He 
healed (xii. 16; Mk. v. 43, vil. 36, comp. ix. g=Mt. xvii. 9). 
The danger of popular fanaticism is perhaps part of the reason 
for His silencing the demons when they would have revealed 
who He was (Mk. i. 25, 34). The time had not yet come for 
such a revelation to be made publicly, and demons were not 
proper apostles of it at any time. Comp. xii. 19, 39, Xvil. 9. 

It has been urged that these injunctions to silence are proof 
that Jesus, during His lifetime, never claimed to be the Messiah. 
If He had, He would not have forbidden people to say that He 
was the Messiah. If He wrought mighty works as evidence that 
He was the Messiah, He would not have told those on whom 
He wrought them to say nothing about it. From this apparent 
inconsistency we are asked to draw the conclusion that most of 
the miracles and all of the injunctions to silence are fictions. 
After His death, His followers believed Jesus to have been God. 
Then of course He must have done great wonders. But (un- 
believers might ask) why did not the wonders cause Him to 
be recognized as Divine at the time? ‘To which His followers 
invented the reply, that He had forbidden people to make 
known His wonderful works. 

This explanation is much less easy to believe than the plain 
statements of the Gospels, which are too nearly contemporaneous 
with the facts to be set aside in this peremptory way. The 
seeming inconsistency is a strong guarantee for the truth of the 
narratives, and invention is here very improbable. We seriously 
misstate the case when we say, Jesus wrought miracles to prove 
that He was the Messiah, and then forbade people to proclaim 
Him as such. Miracles did not prove that He was the Messiah ; 
at most they only proved that He was a Prophet: and He had 
other reasons for working them. Among these reasons we may 
securely place His desire to relieve suffering, to benefit men’s 


1 Mk. also says that Christ ‘ turned him out’ (ἐξέβαλεν) or ‘ dismissed him 
with urgency,’ as if the man were not sufficiently docile. Salmon thinks that 
Mk. does not entirely approve of the leper’s conduct (7e Human Element, 
p- 149). In any case, we see how anxious Jesus was not to overthrow the 
existing ecclesiastical system prematurely. Where it was blameless, He 
strongly supported it; comp. xxiil. 2. 


VIII. 4-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 125 


souls by first healing their bodies, to attract attention to His 
teaching. Many came to be healed, or to see mighty works, 
and then stayed to listen. The reasons suggested above for the 
injunctions to silence are adequate ; but there may easily have 
been others of a deeper nature which lie beyond our ken. See 
a helpful paper by Sanday in the Journal of Theological Studies, 
April 1904. 

‘For a testimony to them’ is in all three. ‘Them’ is 
primarily the priests, but it may include the people ; and it is 
the gift which the cleansed leper must offer that is the ‘testi- 
mony.’ It would show that Christ did not disregard the Law, 
as some had supposed that He did (v. 17), if it was known that 
He had ordered one whom He had healed to do all that Moses 
commanded (Lev. xiv.). Thus this incident illustrates in both 
directions Christ’s treatment of the ceremonial law. When it 
came into collision with the moral law, He disregarded it; the 
lower law must give way. He did not allow ceremonial defile- 
ment to stand in the way of showing sympathy with the leper by 
touching him. But, when there was no such collision, He 
upheld the ceremonial law. ‘He condemned neither the wash- 
ings nor the differences of meats, but He did strenuously 
condemn the confusion of such mere rules with principles of 
religion and morality, z.e. with the substance of the Law and the 
Prophets, and He defended the violation of such rules, not as a 
habit but when the cause was adequate ” (Hort, Jwdaistic Christi- 
anity, p. 29). 

The healing of the Centurion’s Servant (5-13) at a distance 
is not recorded by Mk. and is placed by Lk. (vii. 2-10) immedi- 
ately after the Sermon. The utterances are given in almost 
exactly the same words by Mt. and Lk., but the narrative portion 
differs.1 In Lk. the centurion sends first elders and then friends 
to intercede for his servant ; here he comes himself. The details 
of the story had got changed in transmission, and each Evangelist 
received a different version of it. Jn. iv. 46-54 probably refers 
to a different incident. 

It has been remarked that centurions have a good character 
in the New Testament (xxvii. 54; Acts x. 22, xxil. 26, xxill. 17, 
23, 24, XXiV. 23, XXVli. 43). Roman organization was one of the 
chief instruments of good order in the world, and it produced, 
and was maintained by, excellent individuals, such as this 

1 By placing μου before ὑπὸ τὴν στέγην, Mt. throws the emphasis on the 
substantive : ‘enter under my 700f.’? The centurion asks a great boon, but 
not such a sacrifice on Christ’s part as that. This nicety is lost in Lk. vii. 6. 
Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2559. In Syr-Sin. the man is called a ‘ chiliarch’ or 
tribune. Wellhausen and Zahn make ver. 7 interrogative : ‘ Shall I come 


and heal him?’ Fritzsche would make it a question of surprise; ‘Am I to 
come and heal him ?’ 


126 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 10 


centurion, who had built a synagogue at Capernaum—‘ our 
synagogue’ as the elders call it (Lk. vii. 5). His saying that 
he was ‘not worthy’ that Christ should enter his house 
perhaps indicates that he was not a proselyte: he does not 
ask that the famous Rabbi should pollute Himself by entering 
the house of a Gentile. He knows from personal experience 
what a word from a person in authority can do without per- 
sonal presence. He obeys orders sent to him, and he issues 
orders which are obeyed. Christ has authority over unseen 
powers, and He has only to speak the word, and the servant 
will be healed. 

Both narratives record that ‘Jesus marvelled’ (ἐθαύμασεν) 
at the centurion’s faith. Those who attribute omniscience to 
the incarnate Word must explain how He could ‘ marvel’ at any- 
thing. ‘He marvelled because of their unbelief’ (Mk. vi. 6). 
“The surprises of life, especially those which belong to its 
ethical and spiritual side, created genuine astonishment in the 
human mind of Christ” (Swete). Comp. xxvi. 40; Mk. viii. 12. 
He tells us Himself that He was ignorant of the date of the Day 
of Judgment (Mk. xili. 32). Therefore ignorance was possible 
for Him, and the only question is as to its extent. This we 
must reverently consider with the aid of Scripture. He could 
grow in wisdom (Lk. 11. 52); and He sometimes asked for in- 
formation: ‘How many loaves have ye? go and see.’ ‘How 
long time is it since this hath come to him?’ ‘Where have ye 
laid him?’ ‘Till He reached it, He expected that the barren 
fig-tree would have fruit. When He taught in the synagogue, 
He exhibited no knowledge of the whole of the Scriptures: ‘He 
opened the book and found the place’ (Lk. iv. 17) and read. 
On the other hand, He could read men’s hearts, and He could 
know what was taking place at a distance. ‘The principle which 
can be traced seems to be this: that, where knowledge which 
was necessary for His work could be obtained by ordinary 
means, then He used ordinary means ; but that, where it could 
not thus be obtained, He obtained the knowledge supernaturally, 
—perhaps we may say by revelation from His Father. It was 
not necessary for His work that He should know all about the 
authorship and date of the books of the Old Testament; and it 
is no true reverence to claim such knowledge for Him. In such 
matters He probably accepted what He had been taught, and to 
have known more might have hindered His work rather than 
helped it ; therefore ‘‘ He condescended not to know.” Scripture 
seems to show that “ He was truly limited in knowledge within 
the sphere of His humanity,” and that “He withdrew from 
operation (ad opfere retraxit) His power and majesty.” But the 
subject is a deep mystery, and reverent caution in drawing 


VIII. 11-14] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 127 


inferences is necessary. See Gore, Désserfations, pp. 71 ff. ; 
Hastings’ DB. and DCG., art. ‘ Kenosis.’ 

The declaration, ‘With no one have I found such faith in 
Israel,’ suggests the thought that there are others outside Israel 
who are like this centurion.) Without having the spiritual 
advantages of Jews, they exceed the righteousness of Jews. 
Then ought they not to be admitted to the Kingdom? ‘Yes,’ 
says our Lord, ‘and not only so, but many Jews will be excluded 
from it.’ The verses (11, 12) in which this reversal of human 
judgments is declared are given by Lk. in quite another con- 
nexion (xiii. 28-30) and in somewhat different words. In this 
Jewish-Christian Gospel there are clear indications that the 
Gentiles are to be admitted to the Kingdom, and this is one of 
them: comp. xxi. 43, XXil. 9, XXIV. 14, XXV. 32, ΧΧΥ͂ΠΙ, 19. The 
other Hebrew Gospel has the same (Jn. x. 16, xii. 20). The 
words come partly from Is. xlv. 6 and xlix. 12; comp. lix. 19; 
Jer. iii. 18; Mal. i. rr. What they foretell is the exact opposite 
of Jewish expectations. The Jew expected that the Gentiles 
would be put to shame by the sight of the Jews in bliss. Here 
it is the Gentiles who sit down to the banquet with the Patriarchs, 
while the excluded Jews gnash their teeth. A banquet is so 
often the expression of great joy in human life that it is natural 
to use it as a symbol of the joys of a future life (xxvi. 29; 
Lk. xiv. 15, xxii. 30; Rev. iii. 20, xix. 9). The Jews seem to 
have understood the banquet literally. In the Apocalypse of 
Baruch (xxix. 4) Leviathan and Behemoth are to be given as 
food to the faithful remnant. On ‘the sons of the Kingdom’ 
see Deissmann, ible Studies, p. 162. It is strange irony that 
the sons of the Kingdom are excluded from the Kingdom. 

The narratives of the healing of the Jewish leper, who is told 
to observe the Law, and of the servant of the heathen centurion, 
who is shown to be worthy of the Kingdom, are well placed by 
Mt. immediately after the Sermon in which Christ sets forth the 
Christian’s relation to the Jewish Law; just as the Magi come 
after the shepherds, and sick from all Syria are healed after many 
healings of Jews in Galilee (iv. 23, 24). 

There now follows the third instance in Mt.’s first triplet of 
miraculous healings (14, 15). We have had leprosy and palsy, 
and we now have fever,—the healing of Peters mother-in-law 
(πενθερά), which is recorded by all three. And all three mention 
that, directly she was healed, she ministered to Jesus and those 


1 Origen points out that Jairus, who was not only ‘in Israel’ but a 

agogue-ruler, did not ask for a mere word, but said ‘Come quickly,’ and 
that Martha and Mary said that, if Christ had been there, their brother would 
not have died. And yet Wellhausen suggests that this centurion is a Doppel- 
ganger of Jairus ! 


128 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [ VIII. 15-22 


with Him. This showed the completeness of the cure, and it 
may imply that she was healed near the time of the mid-day 
meal. As it was not until evening that demoniacs and sick were 
brought to Him, we may conclude that the day was a Sabbath. 


It is clear from 1 Cor. ix. 5 that Peter was married, and Clement of 
Alexandria (Strom. iii. 6) says that his wife helped the Apostle in ministering 
towomen. Here Mt. says that her mother ministered to Jesus: αὐτῷ is the 
true reading. Mt. has not mentioned the presence of disciples, and therefore 
does not write αὐτοῖς, α5 Mk. does. Note the change of tense : she rose once 
for all and continued ministering (ἠγέρθη καὶ διηκόνει). 

In what follows (16) we have instructive examples of the way in which 
Mt. treats the narrative of Mk. (1) He omits ‘when the sun did set,’ which 
is not needed after ‘ when even was come,’ and he also omits the second 
mention of ‘those that were sick.? (2) He emphasizes the miraculous 
character of the cures by saying that the evil spirits were cast out ‘with a 
word,’ and that ‘all’ of ‘many’ were healed, not ‘many’ of ‘all.’ (3) He 
omits Christ’s silencing the demons, who would have proclaimed who He 
was in defiance of His will. (4) He adds a fulfilment of Scripture. Besides 
these notable alterations he makes characteristic changes of wording ; e.g. he 
substitutes, as often, an aorist for an imperfect and at the same time adopts a 
verb which he prefers instead of the one used by Mk. (προσήνεγκαν for 
ἔφερον). See small print at the end of the chapter. 


Mt. concludes his first triplet of miracles with a summary of 
many more and a quotation from the Hebrew of Is. lui. 4, the 
Septuagint being different and less suitable for his purpose. The 
original passage refers to one of the Prophet’s own contempor- 
aries, who in a special sense was the Lord’s Servant, and who 
had endured sufferings which should have fallen on his fellows, 
and had thereby won a great deliverance. It is impossible, and 
also unnecessary, to determine what the Evangelist understood 
by ‘took’ (ἔλαβεν) and ‘bare’ (ἐβάσταζεν). It at least must 
mean that Christ removed their sufferings from the sufferers. 
He can hardly have meant that the diseases were transferred to 
Christ. But we may understand him as meaning that Christ’s 
sympathy with the sufferers was so intense that He really felt 
their weaknesses and pains; and perhaps also that the physical 
exhaustion caused by the frequent exertion of healing power 
was very great. 

After three miracles of healing (2-15) we have three miracles 
of power (23-34, ix. 1-8), over the forces of nature, over evil 
spirits, and over sin and its consequences. But first we have 
the warnings to two aspirants to discipleship (18-22). Lk. places 

1 See Deissmann, Bzb/e Studies, pp. 102, 103. Origen quotes as a saying 
of Christ: ‘On account of the weak I was weak, and on account of the 
hungry I was hungry, and on account of the thirsty I was thirsty’ (Resch, 
Agrapha, 2nd ed., p. 132). In the Testaments we have something similar, 
where Joseph speaks of his care for his brethren after Jacob’s death: ‘‘all 


their suffering was my suffering, and all their sickness (μαλακία) was my 
infirmity (4c0évea),” xvii. 7. 


ΜΙ. 19-22] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 129 


these two incidents later in the ministry (ix. 57-60), with a third 
case which Mt. omits; and it is not obvious why Mt. puts be- 
tween two triplets of miracles material which seems to have little 
connexion with either. The replies given to these two aspirants 
are impressive in their sternness, and would serve to sift out the 
worthless and confirm the weak ; and they do not stand alone. 
Compare the sayings about putting the hand to the plough and 
looking back (Lk. ix. 62); taking up the cross (x. 38); hating 
one’s own father, mother, and wife (Lk. xiv. 26); selling all that 
one has and giving to the poor (xix. 21). Such words as these 
are a warning that those who would become the disciples of the 
Messiah must count the cost before joining Him, and that those 
who have joined Him must constantly remember what they have 
undertaken. They must remember the conditions of His service. 

The two men who are here brought before us (19-22) are of 
different, and almost opposite types. The one is too forward, the 
other is inclined to shirk, and Christ treats each of them in accord- 
ance with their special weakness. He reminds both of them of 
the conditions of discipleship. But in the case of the Scribe He 
does this in a way calculated to check weak impulsiveness ; in the 
case of the other He checks a weak disposition to hang back. 

The Scribe had apparently been a hearer of Christ’s teaching ; 
and now, carried away by a sincere, but not very deep feeling of 
enthusiasm, he proposes to become a permanent disciple. With 
easy self-confidence, he makes a promise of following Christ for 
better, for worse, without stopping to consider what such a 
promise involves. Christ takes no advantage of the enthusiast’s 
rashness ; He will have no unreal disciples. But He does not 
repelthe man. He gently reminds him what becoming a follower 
of the Son of Man involves.! Is this Scribe, who had been 
accustomed to a comfortable life, prepared for such a life as His, 
which began in a borrowed stable, and ended in a borrowed 
tomb? For other checks on inconsiderate impulse comp. Lk. 
ΧΙ, 27, XXll. 33. 

The second is already a disciple, and he thinks that what 
seems to be a pressing duty may excuse him for a time from 
Christ’s service. He is as sincere as the Scribe. He means to 
go away and perform this duty, and when he has performed it to 
return. But Christ knew the man better than he knew himself. 
We may believe that He saw, at the bottom of the very reason- 
able request, a wish to escape from duties which were quite as 
imperative, but not so interesting, as the funeral ceremonies ; 
and that He also saw that the return home would be fatal: he 


1 For the title ‘Son of Man,’ here used for the first time, see the Introduc- 
tion (p. xxv); and for the Scribe’s ‘ Master’ (Διδάσκαλε), the Greek equiva- 
lent of ‘ Rabbi,’ see Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 338. 


9 


[30 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW  [VIII. 22-27 


would never come back.! Christ’s reply to him is obscure to 
us; but its figurative language would be perfectly intelligible to 
the disciple. ‘Follow Me’ is a refusal of his request: that much 
is quite plain. ‘Leave the dead to bury their own dead’ seems 
to mean that the spiritually dead, those who have never felt the 
call to a higher life, are always numerous enough to perform 
such ordinary duties as burying the dead; and such occupations 
are suitable to them; they are ‘their own dead.’ But perhaps 
the chief meaning of this perplexing saying is to remind the man 
of the lofty claims which the discipleship that he has chosen has 
on him. Like the high priest (Lev. xxi. 11) and the Nazirite 
(Num. vi. 6, 7), his life isa consecrated one, and he must not 
‘make himself unclean for his father or for his mother.’ ‘He 
that loveth father or mother more than Me is not worthy of Me’ 
(x. 37). Who is it that with such quiet assurance makes such 
claims upon men? 

The second triplet of miracles consists of miracles of power 
over natural, supernatural, and spiritual forces,—storm, demons, 
and sin. Or we may say that in them Christ brings peace to 
nature, to those afflicted by evil spirits; and to the stricken 
conscience. The triplet begins with the s///ing of the tempest on 
the lake (23-27), and the first two miracles occur in the same 
order in all three Gospels. 

Apparently it was great fatigue, produced by the demands 
which the crowds made upon Him, which caused Jesus to take 
refuge in the boat ; and this is the only case in which we read of 
Him as being asleep. His sleep is in marked contrast to the 
noise of the storm and the panic of the disciples. The reality 
of His human nature appears not only in His weariness and 
slumber, but also in His unconsciousness to His surroundings. 
He needs to be awakened. And then He who had rebuked 
both the impetuous Scribe and the half-hearted disciple (20, 22), 
now rebukes both the tempestuous elements and the timid crew.? 
The tempest was no ordinary one, and the disciples, accustomed 
as they were to the violence of this mountain lake, were terrified. 


1Jt is probable that the father was still alive. At the present day, an 
Oriental, with his father sitting by his side, has been known to say respecting his 
future projects: ‘But I must first bury my father.’ In any case this disciple 
was not indispensable for the funeral rites ; the father was sure of burial, and 
(as Chrysostom and Gregory the Great point out), if it is a good deed to bury 
the dead, it is still better to preach the Gospel and rescue others from death. 

2 Mk. and Lk. place the calming of the waves before the calming of the 
disciples’ fears, which is the probable order. The disciples would profit by 
His rebuke far better after their terror was removed. Mt. pointedly reverses 
the order, inserting his favourite τότε after the rebuke to the men and before 
the rebuke to the winds and waves. He also inserts ὀλιγόπιστοι into Mk.’s 
narrative both here and xvi. 8. In each place it seems to represent that part 
of Christ’s rebuke which Mt. omits. 


VIII. 23-27] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 131 


Christ’s ‘ Why are ye so fearful?’ may be a rhetorical question 
to emphasize the rebuke. But, if it is an expression of surprise, 
it is a counterpart to ver. 10. There He marvelled at the great 
faith of a heathen soldier; here He marvels at the little faith 
of His own disciples. The question reminds us of ‘ How is it 
that ye sought Me?’ Just as His parents ought to have known 
where to find Him, so the disciples ought to have known that 
with Him they were sure of protection. ‘That they should pray 
‘Save, Lord’ was well; it was ‘we perish’ (which is in all three 
accounts) that was amiss, for it showed that they put little trust 
in His presence. But the way in which their prayer was granted 
greatly impressed them. It was contrary to all their experience 
of the lake that there should be ‘a great calm’ immediately 
after the wind ceased, and they recognize the presence of super- 
natural power which is new to them. They had witnessed 
wonderful cures ; but this was a miracle on their own element, 
and their amazement and fear (Mk.) were in proportion. And 
we should remember that this thrice-told narrative comes from 
those who were experts in the matter, and that the suggestion 
of a mere coincidence between Christ’s waking and the cessation 
of the storm is out of court. A sudden drop in the wind is 
possible, but that would not at once calm the sea. Comp. Ps. 
Ixxxix. 9, Cvii. 29; 2 Mac. ix. 8. 

Some of the peculiarities in Mt.’s account are of special 
interest. Instead of saying, as the others do, that a ‘storm of 
wind’ (λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου) came down on the lake, he says that 
there was a ‘great quaking in the sea’ (σεισμὸς μέγας ἐγένετο ἐν 
τῇ Gadaooy), which may refer merely to the disturbance caused 
by the wind. But it may also mean that there was an earthquake 
under the lake (Gen. vii. 11).1_ Again, Mt. alone makes the 
disciples address Christ as ‘Lord’ (Κύριε). Mk. has ‘Teacher’ 
(Διδάσκαλε) and Lk. has his favourite “Exvordra (‘ Master’), both 
of which probably represent ‘ Rabbi.’ Side by side with this 
change from ‘Rabbi’ to ‘Lord,’ Mt. attributes the wondering 
exclamation about the obedience of the winds and the sea to 
‘the men’ (oi δὲ ἄνθρωποι ἐθαύμασαν λέγοντες k.7.A.). This is 
a very unusual expression to be applied to the disciples, and it 
looks as if Mt. had chosen it as a contrast to ‘Lord,’ which is 
also a word of his own choosing. Mt. perhaps desires to point 
out how much this miracle revealed of the supernatural character 
of the Messiah, and the way in which it emphasized the difference 
between Him and His followers. Some would refer ‘the men’ 
to the hired servants (Mk. i. 20) who may have been with the 


1 Everywhere else in Mt., and indeed in the N.T., σεῖσμος means an 
earthquake. See notes on xxvii. 51 and xxviii. 2; and comp. Jer. xxiii. 19; 
Nah. i. 3. 


132 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5: MATTHEW [ VIII. 27, 28 


Apostles, or to fishermen in other boats near at hand, or to 
spectators on the shore, or to the people who heard of the miracle 
afterwards. But of all this, not one word is said; and would 
Mt. mean by ‘the men’ people whom he had not mentioned? 
Moreover, Mk. and Lk. attribute the exclamation to the disciples ; 
and if ‘the men’ means the disciples, we can see why Mt. omits 
their ‘great fear’ and substitutes ‘wonder,’ for he often spares 
the Twelve. Comp. ὙΠ 16-17, xiv. 33, xVi. 9, xvii. 9, 23, 
XVlll. I, XXVi. 43; In all these places Mt. omits details in the 
narrative of Mk. which are unfavourable to the disciples. Lk. 
gives both the fear and the wonder. 


The account of the storm in the Testaments should be compared ; but the 
wording is closer to Mk. and Lk. than to Mt. The following expressions 
are remarkable: γίνεται χειμὼν σφοδρός, καὶ λαῖλαψ ἀνέμου μεγάλη, καὶ 
ἐπληρώθη τὸ πλοῖον ὑδάτων, ἐν τρικυμίαις περιρησσόμενον, ὥστε καὶ συντρίβεσ- 
θαι αὐτό. ὡς δὲ ἐπαύσατο ὁ χειμών, ἔφθασε τὸ Πκ τας ἐπὶ τῆς γῆς ἐν εἰρήνῃ 
(Maphtalé vi. 4-9 ; comp. Jn. vi. 21). 


As the second miracle of the second triplet we have the much 
discussed narrative about Zhe Gerasenes and the swine. ‘The 
Messiah, who has just asserted His authority over the forces of 
nature, now asserts the same over the supernatural forces of the 
unseen world. In both Mk. and Lk. the miracle takes place at 
Gerasa, which probably means the place near the lake that is 
still called Gersa or Khersa. Mt. seems to have supposed that 
the much better known Gerasa in Gilead was meant. This 
is some 36 miles from the lake and is impossible. He there- 
fore substituted Gadara, which is less improbable but not at all 
probable. ‘The conjecture of Gergesa is due to Origen; and by 
it he means the place which is now called Khersa. Local pro- 
nunciation might easily be understood as Gerasa or Gergesa, and 
either might produce Khersa. Various travellers have pointed 
out that there is only one steep place where the rush of the 
swine could have occurred, and that is near Khersa. 

All three readings, ‘Gadarenes,’ ‘Gerasenes,’ and ‘ Gergesenes,’ are 
found in different authorities in all three Gospels; but there is little doubt 
that ‘Gadarenes’ is right in Mt., and ‘Gerasenes’ in Mk. and Lk., while 


‘ Gergesenes’ is right nowhere. In all cases where ‘ Gergesenes’ is found it 
is a correction of the original reading. See DCG., art. ‘ Gerasenes.’ 


Mk. and Lk. mention only one demoniac. It is impossible 
to determine how Mt. came to mention two. In xx. 30 he has 
two blind men, where Mk. and Lk. have only one.! The in- 


1 In xxi. 7 he mentions the ass and the colt, where the other three mention 
only the colt. To the healing of two blind men in ix. 27 there is no parallel 
passage. That Mt. adds a demoniac here, because he has omitted the de- 
moniac in the synagogue at Capernaum, is all the less probable, because in 
both iv. 24 and viii. 16 he has mentioned a number of cases. (For various 
solutions of the difficulty see 5. J. Andrews, Ζ 776 of our Lord, pp. 300-302.) 


eo ere 


Vii. 28-34] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 133 


accuracy is of no moment. Nor is there any serious difficulty 
about the influence of evil spirits upon brutes. We know too 
little of what is possible with regard to the influence of mind 
upon matter (a fact about which there is no doubt) to be safe in 
asserting that spirits could not influence creatures that have no 
spiritual nature. And if there is “no a prfori objection” on the 
part of science to the demoniacal possession of swine, still less 
can there be any to the demoniacal possession of men, who have 
a spiritual nature. The question is simply one of evidence, 
which is estimated differently by different minds. 

The real difficulty is the moral one. What right had Christ 
to sanction the destruction of animals which did not belong to 
Him? ‘The answer to which may be this: that a visible effect 
of the departure of the demons was necessary to convince the 
demoniacs and their neighbours of the completeness of the cure ; 
and that brutes and private property may be sacrificed, where the 
sanity and safety of human beings is concerned.! To this may 
be added the possibility that the keepers of the swine were Jews, 
and if they were, they had no right to keep swine. But it is 
perhaps more probable that the swine were owned by pagans, 
who on that side of the lake would be more numerous than 
Jews. It is obvious that the demons cannot have intended or 
expected the destruction of the swine. Knowing that they were 
to be driven out of their human home, they begged to be allowed 
to enter a home that would be less precious in the eyes of Him 
‘whom they recognized as the Son of God. ‘The destruction of 
the swine left them homeless once more (xii. 43). We have 
seen already that surprise was possible for the Son of Man 
(10, 26). It is possible that the destruction of the swine was 
unforeseen by Him; and in that case He cannot be made re. 
sponsible for the results of the permission which He gave.? In 
none of the three reports is there any mention of complaint 


1 Tn any case it was justified by complete success. The man was 
completely satisfied that the demons had left him ; he became quite rational, 
and was willing to dress and comport himself like ordinary people. In all 
this I discover nothing incredible, or unworthy of the character of Jesus” 
(Salmon, Zhe Human Element, Ὁ. 277). 

? Dr. Salmon shows the inconsequence of those who regard Jesus as a 
mere man, and yet blame Him for the destruction of the swine (Zhe Human 
Element, Ὁ. 278). 

The change which Mt. makes in the cry of the demoniac is to be noted. 
In Mk. it is, ‘I adjure Thee by God, torment me not.’ In Mt., ‘Art Thou 
come hither to torment us before the time?’ The latter seems to refer to 
the doctrine that the demons will not be punished till the Day of Judgment ; 
comp. Book of Enoch, xvi. 1; Book of Jubilees, x. 8,9. ‘ Before the time’ 
is peculiar to Mt. Klostermann quotes Philostrat. Vita Afollonii iv. 25: 
δακρύοντι ἐῴκει τὸ φάσμα καὶ ἐδεῖτο μὴ βασανίζειν ἀντό, μηδὲ ἀναγκάζειν ὁμολο- 
γεῖν ὅ τι εἴη. 


134 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [VIII. 28-34 


made against Him by the owners. It was the people of the 
country, not the owners in particular, who requested Him to 
depart from their borders; and, although it is likely that the loss 
of property had something to do with the request, yet it was 
dread of so powerful a Wonder-worker that chiefly moved them. 
Mk. (v. 15) expressly states that ‘they were afraid,’ and 
Lk. (viii. 37) says that the Gerasenes ‘asked Him to depart from 
them, for they were holden with great fear.’ Fear in the presence 
of the supernatural is common in man; and dislike of the 
presence of great holiness is specially natural in those who know 
that their own lives are quite out of harmony with heaven. 
This request of the inhabitants is a guarantee for the general 
trustworthiness of the narrative. Fiction would have made the 
inhabitants anxious to detain Him that He might work other 
wonderful cures, as was commonly the case in Galilee and 
Judzea, where He was regarded, not as a dangerous magician, 
but as a great Prophet. The name ‘Legion’ (Mk., Lk.) is 
another strong mark of reality. While it is reasonable to admit 
the possibility of some distortion of the facts in the process of 
transmission, it is uncritical and arbitrary to dismiss an incident, 
so strongly attested, as a myth. 

The difficult subject of diabolical possession cannot be dis- 
missed as an empty superstition. Not only the Evangelists, 
including the beloved physician, distinguish clearly between 
possession and disease, but (according to their frequent testimony) 


Christ did so also. It is not untrue, but it is misleading, to say 


that their reports are coloured by the ideas prevalent in their 
age. It is equally true to say that their reports are very different 
from the ideas of later Judaism on the subject of demonology, 
—all the difference between what is silly superstition and what is 
sober and credible. Christ did not treat possession either as 
disease or as sin. He seems never to have blamed the possessed, 
or to have suggested that they had brought the affliction on 
themselves. They were great sufferers, and in His compassion 
He freed them from suffering. But, if the reports of His method 
in dealing with this special kind of suffering are to be trusted, 
He went through the form of casting out demons; He told the 
evil spirits to depart. If there were no evil spirits there, He 
either knew this or He did not; and one is involved in grave 


1 On Mt.’s omission of the question, ‘What is thy name?,’ and of other 
questions which seem to imply ignorance on the part of Christ, see Introduc- 
tion, p. xv. Mt. seems also to have felt the difficulty of the statement that 
Christ gave the demons leave (ἐπέτρεψεν αὐτοῖς) to enter the swine. His 
‘Go’ (ὑπάγετε) is not ‘Go into the swine,’ but ‘ Depart, leave the place.’ 
It ignores their request rather than grants it; comp. iv. 10; 1 Cor. vii. 15. 
J. H. Moulton, Gram. of N.T. Gr. p. 172. Mt. also, as before the choosing 
of the Twelve, omits ‘the mountain’ which both Mk. and Lk. mention. 


ΙΧ. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 135 


difficulty, whichever alternative one takes. It is rash to assume 
that there cannot have been any demons to be expelled. The 
hypothesis that they were there, and that they were expelled, is 
not antecedently incredible, and it is supported by evidence 
which cannot easily be explained away. That demoniacal 
possession never occurs now is another rash assumption. A 
medical man once told the present writer that he was confident 
that he had known of a case in his practice: the terrible pheno- 
mena seemed to admit of no other explanation. But physical 
maladies sometimes become extinct, and psychical maladies 
may do so also. Even if it be true that demoniacal possession 
is not found now, that is not conclusive against its taking place 
in other ages when the spiritual condition of society was very 
different. We must be content to leave the question open; but 
the uniform evidence of the Synoptists is much easier to explain, 
if demoniacal possession was a fact.} 


Expressions characteristic of Mt. in ch. viii. : καὶ ἰδού (2, 24, 29, 32, 34), 
προσέρχεσθαι (2, 5, 19, 25), προσκυνεῖν (2), προσφέρειν (4), πορεύεσθαι (9 dis), 
ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (12), γενηθήτω (13), ὥρα ἐκείνη (13), ὅπως πληρωθῇ 
(17), ὀλιγόπιστος (26), τότε (26), μεταβαίνειν (34), ὅρια (34). Peculiar: ἡ 
βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (11), τὸ ῥηθέν (17), ἐξώτερος (12, xxii. 13, xxv. 30), 
δαίμων (31 only). 

It is in this chapter that we have the first instances of what in the second 
half of the Gospel becomes common,—Mt.’s substitution of aorists for the 
imperfects in Mk. We have προσήνεγκαν, ἀπέθανον (16, 32) for ἔφερον. 
ἐπνίγοντο (Mk. i. 32, v. 13). 

On the possibility that Mt. has arranged the paragraphs in this chaptes 
to correspond with paragraphs in xxvii. and xxviii., see T. Milne in the Jour. 
of Th. St., July 1904, p. 602. 


The third miracle of the second triplet is the healing of tha 
paralytic (ix. 1-8). Mt. is again more brief than Mk. (ii. 1-12) 
and Lk. (v. 17-26). ‘His own city’ means Capernaum, which 
is now His chief centre of activity (iv. 13). None of the Evan- 
gelists give any date, and Mk. alone mentions that the paralytic 
had four bearers. ‘Seeing their faith’ is in all three narratives, 
and it is commonly interpreted as meaning the faith of the 
bearers, whose persistence in breaking through the roof, in order 
to place the sufferer near Jesus, is omitted by Mt. But we may 
allow some faith to the sick man himself, although it was prob- 
ably not so strong as that of his friends. He knew, as they did 
not, that his physical weakness had been produced by previous 
sin ; and he perhaps doubted whether the sin would not interfere 
with his cure. Hence Christ deals with the man’s uneasy con- 
science first. The healing of that must precede the healing of 


1 Ὁ. Menzies Alexander, Demonic Possession in the N.7. pp. 12, 200-212, 
249. 


136 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [IX. 1-8 


his body. Ifhe had faith to believe in the forgiveness (and that 
sometimes requires a great deal), he would have faith to be 
healed.!. The affectionate address, ‘My child’ (τέκνον) is in 
both Mt. and Mk. The gracious exhortation, ‘Be of good 
cheer’ (θάρσει), is in Mt. alone, who on two other occasions 
records it as uttered by Christ (ix. 22, xiv. 27). Mk. has it 
once of Christ (vi. 50); Jn. once (xvi. 33); and Luke once 
(Acts xxiii. 11). As used by Christ, it is never a mere ex- 
hortation ; it is followed by an act or assurance which is sure 
to cheer those to whom it is addressed; so, in a very marked 
way, here. 

The present tense (Mt., Mk.) is remarkable. ‘Thy sins are 
receiving forgiveness’ (ἀφίενται, dimittuntur) here and ΠΟΥ͂. 
This was just the assurance for which the man was yearning ;? 
but the words have a very different effect on others. ‘The Scribes 
are here mentioned for the first time as coming in contact with 
the Messiah, and their critical hostility continues to develope 
until it ends in compassing His death. These are local Scribes, 
reinforced, however, as Lk. tells us, by Pharisees and emissaries 
from Jerusalem. ‘This is the first collision in Galilee between 
Jesus and the hierarchy. All three narratives seem to imply 
that the hostile criticism was not uttered, and Mk. expressly 
states that it was ‘in His spirit’ that Christ perceived their 
reasoning. His reply to it is almost verbally the same in all 
three, including the break caused by the parenthesis. The 
Reader-of-hearts could tell how far their questionings were the 
result of jealousy for God’s honour, how far of enmity to a 
Teacher, whom they regarded as dangerous to their authority. 
This they hardly knew themselves, and He gives them a practical 
challenge, by which they can test both themselves and Him. 
It is easier to say, ‘Thy sins are forgiven,’ because no one can 
prove that they are not forgiven. But the claim to heal with 
a word can be proved true or false at once. The proof that 
He had received power to heal with a word was a guarantee 
that He had also received authority to forgive. He respects 
the jealousy for God’s honour and claims no authority apart 
from Him (Jn. v. 27, 30). Once more (viii. 20) He calls 
Himself the Son of AZaz, the Son of Man ox earth. He is no 
blasphemer assuming Divine prerogatives. What God does in 


1 On the meaning of ‘ Faith’ in the N.T. see the detached note on Rom. 
i. 17 in the 7,12. Crzz. Comm. ; also the note on Lk. v. 20; Hastings’ DCG., 
art. ‘Faith’; Illingworth, Christian Character, pp. 63 ff. ; Knowling, Sz. 
James, pp. xiii, 53; Parry, S¢. James, pp. 43 ff. 

2 The belief that sickness was caused by sin was very common: ‘‘ Rabbi 
Ami said, No death without sin, and no pains without some transgression ” ; 
and ‘‘ Rabbi Alexander said, The sick ariseth not from his sickness until his 
sins be forgiven” (Talmud). 


ΙΧ. 8-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 137 


heaven the Son of Man has authority to do on earth,! ¢heatrum 
operum Christi (Bengel). 

As in the case of Simon’s wife’s mother, the person healed 
shows the completeness of the cure by immediate activity. His 
‘bed’ would be little more than a rug or mattress, easily carried. 
The crowd, through which he has to make his way, are, as usual, 
much more sympathetic than the Scribes and Pharisees. ΑἹ] 
three mention that they ‘glorified God.’ Mk. and Lk., who 
think chiefly of the miracle of healing, say that the people 
were ‘amazed’ (ἐξίστασθαι, ἔκστασις ἔλαβεν); but Mt., who 
thinks chiefly of the forgiveness of sins, says that they were 
‘afraid’ (ἐφοβήθησαν is the right reading). Mt. says that they 
glorified God for giving such authority,—the authority to forgive 
sins, to men. Mk. and Lk. represent them as impressed by the 
strange things which they had seem, viz. the healing. Mt. has 
already given us a triplet of wonderful cures (viii. 2-15). This 
second triplet is not to illustrate healings, but the Messiah’s 
power over the invisible forces of nature, demons, and sin. 
But, whether it was the power to heal with a word or the 
forgiveness of sins that chiefly moved them, the multitudes 
are convinced that the charge of blasphemy has been disproved, 
and that Jesus is acting in the power of God. What effect the 
result had on the hierarchy we are not told, but we gather from 
their continued hostility on subsequent occasions that they were 
baffled rather than convinced. 

Between the second and the third triplet of wonderful works 
Mt. places the call of the person whom Mk. calls ‘ Levi, the son 
of Alphzus’ and Lk. ‘Levi,’ while our Evangelist says that he 
was ‘a man called Matthew.’ There can be no doubt that Mt. 
means us to understand that Levi the publican or toll-gatherer, 
and Matthew the toll-gatherer, and Matthew the Apostle (x. 3) 
are one and the same person; and there is no great difficulty 
in the double name. Simon was called Peter, and Thomas was 
called Didymus, and probably Bartholomew was also called 
Nathanael.2, What strikes us chiefly in this narrative is the call 
of an Apostle, and especially the call of such a man to be an 
Apostle. ‘That humble and ignorant fishermen should be chosen 
for such an office was surprising enough; but here Christ chooses 
a man from the class which was most despised and detested 


1 Here, as in xii. 8, it is foss7b/e that the Aramaic original of ‘son of man’ 
was used in the sense of mankind in general, men. But such passages are 
few, and in them it is more probable that the meaning which prevails else- 
where is the right one. It is the title of Jesus Himself, partly veiling, partly 
revealing, His claim to be the Messiah. See Introduction (p. xxv); Dalman, 
Words of Jesus, p. 261; Drummond, Jour. of 7h. St., April and July rgor. 

2? The difference here is that both Matthew and Levi are Semitic, and 
neither name is a patronymic. 


138 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [Ix. 9-11 


among the Jews, the toll-gatherers. And we are right in being 
struck with this. But perhaps the point which led the Evan- 
gelists to preserve this narrative was not the call of the toll- 
gatherer so much as the banquet which followed it, and the 
second conflict with the hierarchy which took place at the 
banquet. That is the connexion between the cure of the 
paralytic and the call of Matthew. Jesus is once more brought 
into collision with the Pharisees and the Scribes. Except in 
the lists of the Apostles, Matthew is not mentioned again by 
the Evangelists. 

Matthew’s instantaneous response to the call to be a disciple 
proves two things: that our Lord knew his character, and that 
Matthew already knew something of Christ’s teaching. Mk. tells 
us that Jesus had been teaching by the side of the sea just before 
the call of Levi; and Matthew may have been among the many 
toll-gatherers who had listened to the Baptist, and had been told 
not to exact more than they had a right to. Matthew probably 
collected tolls for Herod Antipas, much of whose income came 
from this source of revenue. In one sense the response of 
Matthew to the call of Christ was a greater act of faith than that 
of Peter and Andrew or James and John. The fishermen could 
always return to their fishing: they did not “burn their ships” 
by following Christ. When the death of Jesus seemed to ex- 
tinguish their hopes, they did return to their fishing. But for 
Matthew no such return would be possible. His lucrative post 
would be at once filled up, and an ex-toll-gatherer would find 


it hard indeed to get any other employment. He risked every- 


thing by following Jesus. 

But, so far from being depressed by the risk, he regards the 
crisis as a matter for much rejoicing. He makes a great feast 
and invites many of his old colleagues, in the hope, perhaps, 
that other toll-gatherers may be led to follow his new Master. 
But it is not likely that the feast took place on the day of the 
call: the preparations for such an entertainment would take 
time. Mk. and Mt. are not clear as to who gives the banquet, 
or at whose house it takes place; but Lk. is no doubt right in 
making Levi the entertainer, with Jesus as the chief guest. And 
here at once there was a proceeding which the Pharisees could 
denounce as an outrageous scandal. This popular Rabbi not 
only mixed with the worst classes of society, but He ate and 
drank with them,—with excommunicate persons. This was a 
public violation of common decency which could not fail to 
cause great offence. Whether the Evangelists mean us to under- 
stand that there were notorious sinners present, or they are 
merely adopting the Pharisaic point of view, is not quite certain. 
At Capernaum there were not only heathen, but also not a few 


Ix. 11-13} THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 139 


who, through constant intercourse with heathen, had become 
paganized in their manner of life. These would be the class 
that would accept a toll-gatherer’s invitation. 

In the Mosaic Law the eating with Gentiles was not 
forbidden, but the Rabbis forbade it as dangerous, and the 
prohibition was commonly observed. The Pharisees insisted 
upon it (Lk. xv. 2), and violation of it was resented (Acts x. 28, 
xi. 2; Gal. ii. 11). There was a great difference between 
entertaining heathen and being entertained by them. In the 
latter case food that was ceremonially unclean was almost 
certain to be provided, and the Jewish guest had no means of 
discriminating. Comp. Josephus, Con. Apion. il. 29; Tac. 
Hist. y. 5. There was probably less strictness respecting inter- 
course with Gentiles in Galilee and the neighbourhood, where 
Gentiles abounded, than in Jerusalem, where they were rare; 
and it was in and around Galilee that most of our Lord’s public 
life was spent. He taught and healed those who came to Wim 
from heathen districts, and He exhibited no aversion to such 
people, any more than to Samaritans or excommunicate Jews. 
He cancelled His apparent rejection of the Syrophcenician 
woman (xv. 24) as soon as she showed herself worthy of His 
grace; and He cancelled the limitation of the Apostles’ com- 
mission (x. 5, 6), as soon as the necessity for any such limitation 
ceased (xxviii. 19). As to intercourse with heathen, He went 
back to the freedom of the Mosaic Law. 

The Pharisees, fresh from their discomfiture about the 
paralytic, do not attack our Lord directly, but address His 
disciples, whom they could accost as soon as the party broke 
up. We are expressly told by all three that the feast was zz the 
house, and the Pharisees would not enter a toll-gatherer’s house, 
although, according to Eastern custom, they could have entered 
a house during a meal without an invitation. Jesus hears their 
criticism, and at once takes His disciples under His protection 
by answering for Himself. And we have once more to notice 
the position which He assumes as a matter of course, as if 
nothing else was conceivable. He is the Physician of souls ; and 
He is come, come into the world, come from God, to heal 
sinners. ‘There is no argument, no assertion of claims; nothing 
but the quiet statement of fact. He has to heal sinners, and 
must associate with sinners. Who is it who is so conscious of 
this supreme mission ? 

Christ pronounces no judgment upon the assumption of the 
Pharisees that they are in sound spiritual health, with a righteous 
abhorrence of sin. Granted that it is so, then they are in no 
need of the Physician, and ought not to complain that He 
gives His help to those who claim it, and (as the Pharisees them- 


140 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [Ix. 13, 14 


selves admit) greatly need it. The quotation from Hos. vi. 6, 
‘ Mercy I desire, and not sacrifice,’ is not in either Mk. or Lk., 
but Mt. gives it again (xii. 7). It is in harmony with the text in 
both places, and may have been spoken on both occasions ; or 
Mt. may have known it as a saying of Christ, and may have 
inserted it where it appeared to be appropriate. Here the 
‘sacrifice’ is the external righteousness of keeping aloof from 
sinners. Of course the saying does not mean that sacrifice is 
worthless, but that mercy is worth a great deal more. Comp. 
Lk. x. 20, xiv. 12, xxiii. 28: in all such forms of speech, what 
seems to be forbidden is not really prohibited, but shown to be 
very inferior to something else. The introductory formula, ‘Go 
ye and learn’ (zopevOévres μάθετε) was common with the Rabbis. 
It is perhaps putting too much meaning into it to say that with 
it Christ dismisses them, as persons whose self-righteousness 
rendered their case hopeless. They were in far worse con- 
dition than the toll-gatherers, because they did not know 
their own sinfulness. See Du Bose, Zhe Gospel acc. to St. 
Paul p. "7x. 

It is of no moment whether the guestion about fasting was 
raised in consequence of the feast at Matthew’s house (which 
may have coincided with one of the two weekly fasts), as Mt. 
seems to think, or independently. Nor does it matter who put 
the question. Mt. and Mk. are here not quite in harmony, and 
Lk. is indefinite. The difference between the freedom of Jesus 
and His disciples on the one hand and the strictness of John’s 
disciples and the Pharisees on the other, was noticed, and Jesus 
was asked to explain it. John’s disciples had lost their master, 
who was in prison. ‘That fact gives additional point to Christ’s 
answer. He who had before identified Himself with the Divine 
Physician here identifies Himself with the Divine Bridegroom 
of the Old Testament (Is. Ixii. 5 ; Hos. ii. 20), now present with 
His disciples, who constitute the wedding-party.! People who, 
like the Pharisees, kept additional fasts, of course avoided 
sabbaths and feast-days; these must not be turned into fasts. 
Christ points out another exception. It is impossible to make a 
wedding-party fast while the festivities are going on. But days 
will come, when the Bridegroom will be taken away ; then, in 
their sorrow, they will fast. By saying ‘be taken away’ rather 
than ‘go away’ He points (for the first time) to His violent 
death: but this could not be understood at the time. The 
parable of the Bridegroom, however, would be specially 
intelligible to John’s disciples, for John himself had used 


1 For the expression ‘sons of the bride-chamber’ see Deissmann, 47d/e 
Studies, p. 162. In ver. 14, D, Syr-Sin. and Latt. insert πολλά ( freguenter) 
after νηστεύομεν. 


IX. 14-18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 141 


this figure respecting the Christ and His Forerunner (Jn. 
ili. 29).1 

It was perhaps the parable of the Wedding-Feast which 
suggested the two additional parables about garments and wine. 
This pair of parables teaches that a new spirit in religion 
requires a new form. John’s system is right from his point of 
view. Christ’s system is right from a better point of view. But 
it would be fatal to mix the two systems. In the one case 
fasting, in the other case exemption from fasting, was the 
natural outcome of the conditions. To deprive the disciples of 
Christ of their freedom from fasting, would spoil the system in 
which He was training them ; to deprive the disciples of John of 
their freedom /o fast, would spoil the system in which he had 
trained them. The second parable puts this still more strongly. 
The piece of new cloth is only a fragment of the new system ; 
the new wine is the whole of it. If it is an error to take the 
natural outcome of one system and force it on an alien system, 
still more fatal will it be to force the whole of a new and growing 
system into the worn forms of an old one. The new must find 
its Own expression in new forms; and it needs young and fresh 
natures, not yet wedded to cramping traditions, but open to new 
ideas and new methods, to develop the new forms. ‘ New wine 
into fresh wine-skins’ is the only safe principle.? The rottenness 
of old wine-skins seems to have been proverbial: ὃ παλαιοῦται 
ἴσα ἀσκῷ, ἡ ὥσπερ ἱμάτιον σητόβρωτον (Job xiii. 28). 

Mt. now returns to his illustrations of the Messiah’s mighty 
works, of which he gives a third triplet (18-33), if we count the 
narrative respecting /airus’ daughter and the woman with the issue 
as one. It is possible that, instead of three triplets, Mt. means 
to make a total of ten, but this is less likely; the other two 
triplets are clearly marked. Here again, Mt. is much more 
brief than the other two, but it is strange that he omits the 
ruler’s name ;* and, while they connect the incident with the 
return from the Gerasenes, Mt. expressly joins it to the parables 


1 “Τῃ that day’ is superfluous after ‘then shall they fast,’ and as such is 
omitted by Mt. 

3 This is one of the passages in which Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. 
They both say that the wine will be sfz//ed, while Mk. merely says that it 
perishes as well as the skins ; comp. ver. 20, and see Burkitt, Gosp. Ast. and 
its Transmission, p. 42; Hawkins, Hore Synoptice, p. 174. 

8 Jairus was ruler of the synagogue: see Schiirer, Jewrsh People, τι. ii. 
p- 63. For the characteristic way in which Mt. here deals with Mk., see 
Allen, ad Joc. For the ‘hem’ or ‘border’ which the woman touched, see 
Hastings’ D&., art. ‘ Fringes’ and DCG., art. ‘ Border.’ Mt. and Lk. agree 
against Mk. in mentioning ‘the border’ (τοῦ κρασπέδου), which Mk. omits ; 
also in saying that the woman ‘came uf’ (προσελθοῦσα), while Mk. says that 
she ‘came’ (ἐλθοῦσα). See Burkitt, p. 44; and comp. xiv. 1, xvi. 16, 
xvii. 5, 17, xxi. 17, 23, xxvi. 67, 68, xxvii. 54, 57-60. 


142 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [1Σ. 18-26 


just recorded. All three record, in different ways, the ruler’s 
falling at Jesus’ feet, Mt. using his favourite word ‘worshipped’ 
(προσεκύνει). In Mk. the ruler says that his daughter is very ill 
(ἐσχάτως ἔχει) ; Mt., in abbreviating, makes him say that she has 
just died (ἄρτι ἐτελεύτησεν) : she was dead when Jesus got to the 
house. It augments the ruler’s faith, that he should believe 
that Jesus could not only heal a dying girl, but restore her to 
life. In spite of his many abbreviations, Mt. gives the Hebrew 
periphrasis, ‘He avose and followed,’ which merely means that 
He began to move: it does not necessarily imply that He had 
been sitting. 

The incident of the woman with the issue is another instance 
of great faith, tinged, it may be, with superstition, which, 
however, Christ does not reprove. Mt. treats it as a healing 
wrought by the woman’s faith, without Christ’s action. This is 
an additional reason for supposing that he does not reckon this 
as one of his illustrations of Christ’s mighty works. He must 
include the raising of the dead among his examples, and in 
telling the story he could hardly omit all mention of the woman ; 
but her cure is not counted. The affectionate ‘ Daughter’ (comp. 
ver. 2) is in all three: the encouraging, ‘Be of good cheer,’ is 
given by Mt. alone (see on ver. 2). He utters no healing word, 
for He knows that she is already cured. That she was ‘made whole 
from that hour’ is also peculiar to Mt. Comp. xv. 28, xvil. 18. 

Mt. alone mentions the flute-players among the mourners, 
real and professional. Asa Jew he knows that they must have 
been there, though Mk. does not say so, for even the poorest 
Jews had at least two flute-players for mourning the death of a 
wife (comp. Jer. xlviii. 36; Jos. B. ἢ 11. ix. 5). The custom 
was wide-spread. Flute-players at Roman funerals were so 
fashionable that the tenth law of the Twelve Tables restricted 
the number to ten. Seneca says that they made such a noise at 
the funeral of the Emperor Claudius that Claudius himself 
might have heard them. See Wetstein, ad /oc., and art ‘ Music’ 
in Hastings’ DB. The peremptory ‘Depart’ (Avaxwpetre) is 
given by Mt. alone, but the declaration that she is not dead but 
is sleeping is in all three. The beloved physician says that they 
knew that she was dead, and Christ is probably using ‘sleep’ in 
the sense that she is about to be awakened, and therefore cannot 
be regarded as dead.! All three mention that He laid hold of 

1 In the familiar phrase ‘he slept with his fathers,’ a different verb is used 
(ἐκοιμήθη). In the Septuagint καθεύδειν is not used in this metaphorical 
sense, excepting Dan. ΧΙ. 2. 

Mt. omits the presence of Peter, James, and John ;—the first instance of 
their being taken apart from the other Apostles. He also omits the command 


to be silent about the miracle, perhaps because of its difficulty. In sucha 
case, the miracle must become known. 


IX. 27-33] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 143 


her hand, which would involve ceremonial uncleanness, if she 
were dead, as did touching the leper (viii. 3). Mt. omits 
Talitha cumt, perhaps simply for brevity; but the words might 
confirm the idea that she was only asleep, and thus lower the 
power of the miracle. Mt. alone adds that ‘the fame hereof 
went forth into all that land.’ He repeats this after the 
next miracle (31), and has an equivalent remark after the 
third (33). 

The healing of two blind men (27-31) may come from some 
unknown source, but it is also possible that the narrative is made 
up of material from Mk. Mk. twice records the healing of one 
blind man (vii, 22, x. 46). Mt. twice records the healing of two 
blind men (here and xx. 30). The latter certainly comes from 
Mk. x. 46. 15 this narrative influenced by Mk. vii. 221 The 
appeal to Jesus as the ‘Son of David’ indicates that the idea that 
He may be the Messiah is increasing (see Dalman, Words of 
Jesus, pp. 316 ff., and comp. ΜΚ. x. 47, 48, xii. 35, 36, 27) Ue 
would seem as if this appeal was unwelcome ; the popular idea 
of the Messiah was so faulty.2 Christ waits till He is free from 
publicity before making any response; and, though He then 
responds to their faith, He yet strictly charges them to keep the 
matter secret, a charge which they entirely disregard. This is 
exactly what Mk. tells us about the leper (i. 43-45), a detail 
which Mt. omits in reference to that incident (viii. 4). Has Mt., 
perhaps by lapse of memory, transferred the disobedience of the 
leper to the blind men? But such disobedience would be likely 
to be common, and after the result of the raising of Jairus’ 
daughter (26) Mt. may have assumed a similar result here: the 
men healed would be sure to talk about it. 

After the restoration of life to the dead, and of sight to the 
blind, we have, as the third miracle of the third triplet, the 
restoration of speech to the dumb (32, 33). ‘This, rather than the 
casting out of a demon (of which we have already had an 
illustration), is the special feature of this mighty work. But there 
are other reasons for introducing it here: (1) it still further 
increased the fame of the Messiah, and thus helped to lead to 
the expansion of His Ministry by the sending out of the Twelve ; 
(2) it marked another stage in the increasing hostility of the” 
Pharisees. They now go the length of saying that the mighty 


1 Zahn rejects these and similar suggestions as foolish, and it is no doubt 
simpler to treat this narrative as independent of Mk. But Mt. is so free in 
his treatment of materials, that the theory mentioned in the text cannot be set 
aside as mere Zorhett. 

2 This is the first time that Christ is addressed as the ‘Son of David’; 
comp. xii. 23, xv. 22, xx. 30, 31, xxi. 9, 15. This is in harmony with the 
title of the Gospel (i. 1). Throughout, it is the Evangelist’s aim to portray 
Jesus as the Messiah and the legitimate heir of the royal house of David, 


144 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [IX. 84-88 


works of the Messiah are done by the aid of the evil one (34). 
See below. 

The dumbness of the man is mentioned first, as being the 
special feature ; the possession by a demon is secondary. The 
people had had experience of exorcisms by Christ and by others 
(xii. 27); and it was the restoration of the man’s power of speech 
which so astonished them ; especially as the cure from both the 
demon and the dumbness was done with such authority and 
immediate effect, whereas Jewish exorcisms were elaborate 
proceedings of doubtful result (See Hastings’ D4Z#., art. 
‘Exorcism’). And, if the verse be genuine, it was the extra- 
ordinary character of the cure which provoked the malignant 
comment of the Pharisees. 


But it is doubtful whether the comment of the Pharisees is part of the 
original text. Syr-Sin. and important Old Latin witnesses (Dadk, Juv. Hil.) 
omit, and those which contain the verse differ in wording. It looks like a 
doublet of xii. 24, introduced here by early copyists. A more certain doublet 
is found in xx. 16, where ‘ many are called but few chosen’ has been intro- 
duced in many texts from xxii. 14. The comment of the multitudes recalls 
Judg. xix. 30: ‘ There was no such deed done nor seen from the day that the 
children of Israel came up out of the land of Egypt.’ 


IX. 35-XI. 1. The Mission of the Twelve. 


After the nine acts of Messianic sovereignty, the Evangelist 
shows how the fame excited by these and similar mighty works 
led to the expansion of the Ministry of the Messiah. He no 
longer works single-handed, but selects twelve disciples to help 
Him. 

Before giving us illustrations of the Messiah’s teaching and 
healing, Mt. gave us a summary of the work as a whole (iv. 23- 
25). He here gives us a similar summary (35), expanding half 
of Mk. vi. 6 (which he has already used iv. 23) for this pur- 
pose. In both summaries he dwells upon the great multitudes 
which came to Christ’s teaching and healing; but here he goes 
on to point out that there were multitudes whom it was impossible 
for Him to reach: more labourers must be found. The Messiah 
had compassion for these masses of people, and it is compassion 
which moves to action. Indifference, and even repugnance, 
may pass into interest, but not until compassion begins is any 
serious remedy taken in hand. Hence the frequency with which 
the moving cause of Christ’s miracles is said to be compassion 
(ix: 36, Siv. τὴ. τὺ 75; χα τοῦ ΝΙΚΙ 9 ἰθ, ἰχ' 22: Lee wg 
and, excepting in parables (xviii. 27; Lk. x. 33, xv. 20), the 
word (σπλαγχνίζεσθαι) is used of no one but Christ. He was 
filled with compassion for these multitudes, groping after the 
truth and bewildered by the formalism of the Scribes, suffering 


ΙΧ. 86-88] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 145 


from many diseases and getting no help from the remedies of 
the day. A strong word (ἐσκυλμένοι) is used to express their 
distress.1_ And when the harassed people are compared to 
‘sheep that have no shepherd’ (Num. xxvii. 17; 1 Kings 
xxii. 17; Ezek. xxxiv. 5), we think of them as exhausted in the 
vain search for pasture.? They have vague cravings, and do not 
know whither to go to satisfy them. At last they are being 
directed to the Kingdom which is at hand. The Baptist had 
been the first to proclaim this (iii. 2). Then the Messiah 
Himself had delivered the same message (iv. 17). And now the 
Twelve are to be sent out to make more widely known the 
same great saving truth. 

The words which follow (37, 38) are given by Lk. at the 
sending out of the Seventy (x. 2). They are not in Mk.; but 
comp. Jn. iv. 35. The change from sheep lacking a shepherd 
to harvest lacking reapers is abrupt, but natural. The ‘few’ 
need have no reference to the small number sent out on either 
occasion. The proverb-like saying is of general application, 
for the supply of workers is always deficient. The available 
material is sometimes very scanty, and there is always unwilling- 
ness to be overcome. Possibly the strong word used for ‘send 
forth’ (ἐκβάλῃ : comp. ἐκβάλλειν in the next verse) has reference 
to the urgency of the need. In any case, the command in 
ver, 38 is always binding, for the deficiency is always there. 

It should be remarked that Mk. puts a considerable interval 
between the selection of the Twelve, with a view to sending 
them out to preach (iii. 13-15), and the actual sending of them 
out two and two (vi. 7); and we may believe that there was 
such a time of special training, although Mt. does not mark it. 
Yet he writes of ‘the Twelve’ as a body already existing when 
the commission to minister was given. 

Expressions characteristic of Mt. in ch. ix.: καὶ ἰδού (2, 3, το, 
20), προσφέρειν (2, 32), τότε (6, 14, 29, 37), ἐκεῖθεν (9, 27), 
λεγόμενος (9), πορεύεσθαι (13), προσέρχεσθαι (14, 20), ἰδού (18, 
32), προσκυνεῖν (18), ὥρα ἐκείνη (22), ἀναχωρεῖν (24), υἱὸς Δαυείδ 
(27), γενηθήτω (29), φαίνεσθαι (33). Peculiar: ἐνθυμεῖσθαι 
(4), τὸ εὐαγγέλιον τῆς βασιλείας (35), μαλακία (35); peculiar 


1 Originally it meant ‘flayed’ or ‘mangled,’ but became equivalent to 
**harassed’ or ‘vexed’ with weariness or worry (Lk. vii. 6, vili. 49; Mk. 
ν. 35). 

* Scattered’ seems to suit shepherdless sheep, but it may be doubted 
whether this is the exact meaning of ἐριμμένοι. In the O.T. it is used of 
dead or helpless men prostrate on the ground: I Judg. iv. 22; 1 Kings xiii, 
24, 25, 28; Jer. xiv. 16, xxxvi. 30; Tob. i. 17; Judith vi. 13, xiv. 15; Ep. 
Jer. 71. ‘Prostrated’ seems to be the meaning here: the Vulg. has jacentes. 
At xiv. 14 Mt. omits this saying, although it is there found in Mk. (vi. 34). 

5 But the verb is used in quite a weakened sense elsewhere : xii. 20, 35. 


TO 


146 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 85. ΜΑΤΤΗΕῪ [Χ.1-4 


to this chapter: αἱμορροεῖν (1x. 20). Not one of the above 
examples is found in the parallels in Mt. and Lk. This again 
shows that, to a considerable extent, Mt. uses his own vocabu- 
lary in reproducing the material of his sources. We can see 
this with regard to what he takes from Mk.; and it probably 
holds good with regard to the source which both he and Lk. 
frequently use, but which is no longer extant. 

Barnabas (v. 9) makes a curious use of ver. 13: “He then 
manifested Himself to be the Son of God when He chose His 
own Apostles who were to proclaim His Gospel, for, in order 
that He might show that He came not to call the righteous but 
sinners, they were sinners above every sin” (ὑπὲρ πᾶσαν ἁμαρτίαν 
ἀνομωτέρους). Comp. the apparent quotation of Mt. xxii. 14 as 
Scripture (as γέγραπται) in Barn. iv. 14. 

In x. 1 the Evangelist returns to the narrative of Mk. (vi. 7).3 
He has told us of the call of the two pairs of brothers (iv. 18-22) 
and of Matthew (ix. 9) to be disciples in a closer relation than 
Christ’s ordinary followers; but as yet nothing has been said of 
their working with Him or for Him. No formal commission 
has been recorded. ‘These closer disciples had now received 
some training from Him, and some had been previously trained 
by the Baptist. The time is come when they are to be sent to 
work away from the Master, so that there may be more centres 
than one. There are now to be seven centres,—Himself, and 
six pairs of Apostles. Mt. omits that they were sent out in pairs, 
but he arranges them in pairs in the list. 

It is remarkable how little we know of the work of these men 
who have been distinguished by the great name of Apostle. We 
know something, but not very much, about Peter, James, and 
John: a very little about one or two more; but the rest are 
mere names. We know neither where they worked, nor in what 
way they did their work; neither how long they lived, nor how 
they died. The traditions about them are very untrustworthy, 
and perhaps are mere conjectures, framed to mask unwelcome 
ignorance. Yet great work in various parts there must have 
been. We see this from the rapidity with which the Roman 
world was converted, a result which implies much strenuous 
labour in the Apostolic and sub-Apostolic age. But in the 
New Testament it is the work and not the workers that is 
glorified. The Gospel is everything; who preached it is of little 
importance. ‘It is no longer I that live,’ says 5. Paul, ‘but 
Christ liveth in me’ (Gal. ii. 20). The individual worker may or 
may not be remembered here; it is He who works in him and 


1 Here, as in the case of the Gerasene swine, Mt. says nothing about F the 
mountain’ which both Mk. and Lk. mention. It illustrates his habit of 
omitting unimportant details. 


Χ. 1- 4] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 147 


inspires him that Scripture glorifies,—He who originates and 
sustains all that His human instruments effect. He Himself 
has told them to rejoice, not at the things, however great, which 
they accomplish, still less at the things which men have written 
about their achievements, but rather because their names are 
written in heaven, in the Lamb’s Book of Life (Lk. x. 20; Rey. 
xxi. 27). History tells us little about the doings of the Apostles. 
It is more than enough to know that in the heavenly city the 
wall has ‘twelve foundations, and on them twelve names of the 
twelve Apostles of the Lamb’ (Rev. xxi. 14). 

This is the only place in which Mt, uses the word ‘ Apostle,’ 
Before giving the names of the Twelve he tells how the Messiah 
equipped them: He gave them authority to cast out unclean 
spirits, and to heal all manner of disease, as He Himself had 
been doing (iv. 23, 24, ix. 35). This was without a precedent 
in Jewish history. Not even Moses or Elijah had given mir- 
aculous powers to their disciples. Elijah had been allowed to 
transmit his powers to Elisha, but only when he himself was 
removed from the earth. In his list of the Apostles, Mt. some- 
what changes the order as given in Mk. iil. 16-19. In the first 
group of four he puts the brothers in pairs, instead of placing 
Andrew after the three chief Apostles. He might have done 
both ; but that would have involved placing Peter third, which 
Mt., who exhibits a special interest in S. Peter, would not do. 
He not only put Peter first, as all do, but he specially calls him 
‘first’ (πρῶτος), which would be superfluous, if it did not mean 
more than first on the list. It indicates the pre-eminence of 
Peter. In the second group, Mt. places Matthew after, instead 
of before, Thomas, and adds that he was ‘the toll-gatherer’ 
(ix. 9). In each of the first two groups there is one Greek 
name, Andrew in the one and Philip in the other. In the 
third group the Thaddzeus of Mt. and Mk. may be safely identi- 
fied with the ‘Judas (son) of James’ of Lk. and the ‘Judas not 
Iscariot’ of Jn. The origin of the name Thaddeus, and also 
of that of Lebbzeus, which has got into Western texts here and 
in Mk., is an unsolved problem. For conjectures see Hastings’ 
DB. art. ‘Thaddeus.’ For ‘Cananezan’= ‘Zealot’ see DCG., 
art. ‘Cananzan,’ and Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 50.2 That 
‘Iscariot’ means ‘man of Kerioth’ or ‘a Kariothite’ is probable, 
but not certain ; and the situation of Kerioth is uncertain. See 
DCG.., art. ‘Judas Iscariot,’ and Lxfosttory Times, Dec. 1897, 


1 In the Testaments we have, ‘‘ If ye do well, even the unclean spirits will 
flee from you” ; καὶ τὰ ἀκάθαρτα πνεύματα φεύξονται ἀφ᾽ ὑμῶν (Benjamin, 2; 
comp. /ssachar, vii. 7). 

*In the Apostolic band, both the toll-collectors, who worked for the 
Roman Government, and the Zealots, who endeavoured to overthrow it, were 
represented. 


148 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [X.4-8 


p. 140, and Jan. 1898, p. 189. If Judas was the only one of 
the Twelve who was not of Galilee, this may have placed him 
out of sympathy with the others from the first. 

Like the reproach, ‘who made Israel to sin,’ which clings to 
the memory of Jeroboam the son of Nebat, so “the terrible 
indictment,” ‘who also betrayed Him,’ clings in some form or 
other to the memory of Judas Iscariot. Lk.’s form of it here 
is ‘who turned traitor’ (ds ἐγένετο προδότης). That was the 
amazing fact (which is stated again and again and left to speak 
for itself without comment); that one whom Jesus chose to be 
an Apostle—‘one of the Twelve,’ delivered Him up to His 
enemies (comp. iv. 12). We cannot doubt that our Lord saw 
in Judas the qualities necessary for the office of an Apostle, the 
material out of which Apostles are made. It is evident also 
that Judas responded to Christ’s call and followed Him with 
knowledge of what the call involved. When the Twelve returned 
from their first mission and gave an account of their work, 
there is no hint that any one of them had proved a failure. 
Christ’s call left all the Twelve free to be faithless, if they so 
willed ; and in time Judas came to will this. His treachery is 
proof that no office in the Church, however exalted, gives 
security: disastrous downfall is possible even for those who 
have been nearest to Christ. 

Some find seven divisions in the sayings which are here put 
together as one discourse ; but the sayings, when thus separated, 
are of very unequal length, varying from half a verse to eighteen 
verses. A division into five paragraphs, as in the RV., is more 
illuminating. ‘The same is true of ‘the eschatological discourse 
(xxiv. 5--χχν. 45). 

The charge to the Twelve (5-42) is much longer in Mt. than 
in Mk. or Lk., and a good deal of it is the same as Lk.’s report 
of the charge to the Seventy. Like the Sermon on the Mount, 
it is evidently made up of utterances which were spoken on 
different occasions. Some portions are suitable to this first 
mission ; others clearly refer to the period after the Ascension. 
Mt. has combined the report in Mk., which is our best guide as 
to what was said on this occasion, with material which belongs 
to other occasions. See Stanton, p. 330. 

The prohibition to go to Gentiles! or Samaritans was tem- 
porary, and perhaps confined to this first missionary journey. 
The Jew had the first claim, and as yet the Twelve were not 
competent to deal with any but Jews. After the Apostles had 
gained experience in this narrower field, and after the Jews had 
refused to avail themselves of their privileges, the Apostles turned 


1 For the Hellenistic towns in the east and north-east districts of Palestine, 
see Schiirer, -Jewesh People, 11. i. pp. 57 ff. 


X. 8-10] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 149 


to the Gentiles and became missionaries to all the world. Both 
by word and example Christ showed that Samaritans (Jn. iv. 
4-42; Lk. ix. 52) and Gentiles (xv. 28) were not to be per- 
manently excluded. But ‘the lost sheep of the House of Israel’ 
are the first objects of Christ’s compassion ; lost, because they 
had no shepherds, no competent teachers; for those who pro- 
fessed to lead them were ‘blind guides’ (xv. 14, xxiii. 16, 24), 
guiding them, not to pastures, but to pits. The charge, ‘as ye 
go, preach,’ is another indication of the temporary character of 
these directions. They are to be “field-preachers” moving on 
from place to place. No permanent organization is to be 
attempted. The sheep are all scattered, and the first thing 
is to awaken in them the desire for a shepherd and a fold. 
The Messiah and the Kingdom are ready when they are ready. 

The commission to ‘raise the dead’ is startling. No such 
commission is mentioned by Mk. or Lk., and the words are 
wanting in numerous authorities here. But those which omit 
are mostly late, and the words are so strongly attested by the 
best witnesses that they cannot be rejected. It is more probable 
that they were omitted by later copyists, because no instance of 
raising the dead by a disciple is mentioned in the Gospels, and 
because no charge to do so is recorded by Mk. or Lk., than that 
a very early copyist inserted the words. Assuming them to be 
genuine is, however, not the same as assuming that they were 
spoken. The Evangelist may have wished to show that the 
Messiah conferred upon His Apostles the full measure of bene- 
ficent power which He exercised Himself.} 


The words are found in N BCD, Latt. Syrr. Copt. Aeth. They are 
omitted in L, etc., Sah. Arm. In a few texts they come after ‘cleanse the 
lepers,’ in a few after ‘cast out demons.’ 


‘Freely ye received’ does not mean that any of the Twelve 
had been miraculously healed. It means that the power to heal 
was given them for nothing, and that they must not take pay- 
ment for healing. This is not at variance with the principle 
that ‘the labourer is worthy of his food’ (10). To accept 
support from those to whom they ministered was allowable, and 
it was the duty of those who accepted the ministry to give the 
support; but to make a trade of their miraculous powers was 
not permitted? Mt. has ‘Get (κτήσησθε) no gold, nor yet 

1 It should be noticed that Christ here clearly distinguishes between heal- 


ing the sick and casting out demons, as also does Mk. (vi. 13) in narrating 
what the disciples did after receiving this charge; comp. Lk. vi. 17, 18, 


I. 

3 Rabbi Jehudah interpreted Deut. iv. 5 as meaning that God had taught 
without fee, and therefore teachers must give instruction free (Talmud). The 
Talmud orders that ‘no one is to go to the Temple-mount with staff, shoes, 


150 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [%. 10-14 


silver, nor yet brass’: they are not to take the smallest pecuniary 
remuneration. Mk. has that they are to take none with them 
as provision for the way; they are to take nothing ‘save a staff 
only.’ In Mt. the staff is prohibited. There is a similar differ- 
ence with regard to sandals: in Mk. they are ordered, in Mt. 
they are forbidden, unless we are to suppose that σανδάλια differ 
from ὑποδήματα. These discrepancies need not disturb us: the 
general meaning in all three Gospels is the same: ‘make no 
elaborate preparations, but go as you are.’ They are not to be 
like persons travelling for trade or pleasure, but are to go about in 
all simplicity. It is not that they are purposely to augment the 
hardships of the journey (as forbidding staff and sandals might 
seem to imply), but that they are not to be anxious about 
equipment.! Freedom from care rather than from comfort is the 
aim. ‘Their care is to be for their work, not for their personal 
wants. Hence they ave to be careful what house they make 
their headquarters in each place. A disreputable house might 
seriously prejudice their usefulness. But having found a 
suitable resting-place they are not to leave it for the sake of 
variety or greater comfort. That again might injure their 
reputation, besides paining their first entertainer. Moreover 
they are to be courteous: ‘as ye enter into the house, salute 
it’ Courtesy is never thrown away; it enriches the giver, even 
when it meets with no response. 


‘Talk not of wasted affection, affection never was wasted ; 
If it enrich not the heart of another, its waters, returning 
Back to their springs, like the rain, shall fill them full of refreshment ; 
That which the fountain sends forth returns again to the fountain.” ? 


But time was very precious ; and none must be wasted on 
ground that made no sign of becoming fruitful. Where prejudice 
or the calumnies of Christ’s enemies made people so hostile as 
to refuse even a hearing, the Twelve were to leave them and 
seek more hopeful soil, of which there was plenty. This again 
clearly refers to the early missionary work of the Apostles, and 
is not meant as a principle of action for all time. It is not to 
be supposed that ministers of the word are at once to abandon 
as hopeless those who decline their first approaches. What the 


girdle of money, or dusty feet”; and Edersheim says that Christ’s charge 
means, ‘Go in the same spirit as you would go to the Temple services’ 
( Zemple, p. 42). 

1 On the strength of a Greek inscription of the Roman period, discovered 
at Kefr-Hauar in Syria, Deissmann would explain wpa as “ἃ beggar’s collect- 
ing bag,” so that the charge would mean, ‘You are not to make money by 
healing, and you are not to beg.’ But the common explanation of ‘ travelling- 
bag,’ or ‘knapsack’ is better, as πήραν els ὁδόν shows (New Light on the N.T, 

Srom Records of the Greco-Roman Period, p. 43). 

2 Longfellow, Evangeline, 11, i. 


Χ. 14-16] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE [51 


Twelve had to do was to give to as many people as possible 
some kind of preparation for the teaching of Christ, and they 
had a very limited time in which to do this. It was, therefore, 
not allowable to expend much of this precious time upon 
unpromising material, when promising material could easily be 
found. But a solemn warning was to be given to those who 
rejected them. The dust of the place where they dwelt was to 
be shaken off, as if it were the polluting dust of a heathen road, 
or perhaps to intimate complete separation: the Apostles were 
not even to share dust with such people (see Edersheim, Zife 
and Times, i. p. 643). Both in the Old and in the New Testa- 
ment the cities of the plain are typical of abominable wickedness 
provoking severe judgments.1_ The allusion is all the more 
suitable here because, just before the overthrow of these cities, 
the inhabitants committed a gross violation of the rights of 
hospitality. 

What follows (16-23) evidently does not refer to this first 
mission, but to a later time, when, instead of mere refusal to 
listen to their teaching, the Apostles will have to face active 
persecution. Occasional unreceptive listeners in Jewish towns 
and villages have developed into systematic prosecutions before 
the councils (v. 22) of the synagogues and the Sanhedrin, and 
even before governors and kings among the Gentiles. Christ 
would not be likely to foretell this until the Apostles had had 
some experience of missionary work. It would not guide them 
in their first efforts. In what precedes this (5-15), the emphasis 
is on the beneficent character of the Gospel which they have to 
carry to the lost sheep of Israel, and they are not told to prepare 
for anything worse than a rejection of their message. Here the 
chief emphasis is on their own sufferings.? Christ wishes them 
to be under no illusions; after He is gone, they will have to 
suffer cruel persecutions, even at the hands of their own kindred 
(21), and hostile kindreds are sometimes specially implacable. 

And it is the Messiah’s own doing that they have to endure 
all this; it is the Shepherd Himself who sends them forth ‘as 
sheep in the midst of wolves.’ There is a notable emphasis on 
the Sender: ‘ Behold, Z send you forth’ (Ἰδού, ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω 
ὑμᾶς). And it is for His sake (18, 22) that they will have to 


1 See also the Book of Jubilees xvi. 5, 6, xx. 5, 6, xxii. 22. 

In the Gospels, the expression, ‘Day of Judgment’ (ἡμέρα κρίσεως), is 
peculiar to Mt. (x. 15, xi. 22, 24, xii. 36). We find it in the Testaments: 
Levi iii. 2, 3; also in the Book of Enoch, c. 4. There it has many names. 

2 With γίνεσθε οὖν φρόνιμοι comp. γίνεσθε οὖν σοφοὶ ἐν θεῷ, τέκνα pov, καὶ 
φρόνιμοι (Naphtali viii. 9). 

8 With this emphatic ἐγώ comp. xii. 27, 28, xx. 22 
xxiv. 49; ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω is peculiar to Mt.: x, 1 
has ἐγὼ ἀπέστειλα, iv. 38, xvil. 18. 


, Xxvili. 20; Lk, xxi. 15, 
6, xi, 10, xxii. 34. Jn. 


152 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [Σ. 16-23 


suffer. It is precisely this fact, as He knows, that will give them 
courage, and will even make them welcome suffering. It is in 
obedience to His command, and for His Name’s sake. But 
who is this who dares to issue such commands, and to make 
such claims upon His followers? He puts before His Apostles, 
not the promise of rapid success, not popularity or the praise of 
men, but peril and persecution. ‘Ye shall be hated of all men 
for My Name’s sake.’ That is not the world’s way of winning 
adherents, and it must have been a great surprise to men who 
were expecting the speedy triumph of the Messiah and their own 
share in the glories of the Kingdom. 

It might well alarm the bravest of these simple fishermen to 
be told that they would have to answer for their doings on 
Christ’s behalf before Jewish councils! and heathen courts. 
They were ready to submit to severe sentences of scourging or 
imprisonment, or death ; but they might easily injure the sacred 
cause which they represented by their unskilfulness in replying to 
the questions of their judges. The Master tells them not to be 
anxious (vi. 25) about that: ‘the Spirit of their Father’ will be 
in them and teach them what to say. The very form of expres- 
sion, ‘the Spirit of your Father,’ is full of encouragement; and 
this is the first mention in this Gospel of a promise of the 
assistance of the Spirit. Comp. the promise to Moses: ‘I will 
be with thy mouth and teach thee what thou shalt say’ (Exod. 
iv. 12). As Bede puts it, Vos ad certamen acceditis, sed ego 
prelior. Vos verba editis, sed ego sum qui loquor (on Lk. xxi. 15). 

The fanaticism of those who needlessly courted a martyr’s 
death is condemned beforehand. Those who, through no fault 
of their own, are persecuted must endure to the end, even unto 
death, and they shall be saved, ‘shall win their souls’ (Lk. xxi. 
19). But Christ’s ministers have no right to provoke destruc- 
tion: they must be harmless as doves. There is so much work 
to be done that the life of every missionary is precious. When 
they are persecuted in one sphere of work, they must seek 
another: that is the wisdom of the serpent. Christ Himself 
avoided His enemies, until He knew that His hour was come. 
There must be no wanton waste of Christian lives. It some- 
times happens that there is more real heroism in daring to fly 
from danger than in stopping to meet it. To stop and meet 
useless risks, because one is afraid of being called a coward, is 
one of the subtlest forms of cowardice; and the desire to be 
thought brave is not a high motive for courageous action. 


1 Schiirer, Jewish People, τι. ii. pp. 59-67. Derenbourg, Ast. de la Pal. 
pp. 86 ff. 

For ὑπομονή (22) as the link between persecution and victory see Hort on 
Rey. i. 9. 


eee i ee ee hee ee ον 


X. 16-23] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 153 


Persecution is a temptation to deny Christ, and those who meet 
persecution in a spirit of bravado have no right to expect to be 
delivered from succumbing to that temptation. The martyr’s 
crown is not to be won, unless a man ‘has contended lawfully’ 
(2 Tim. ii. 5). 

This paragraph, like the preceding one (5-15), closes with a 
‘Verily I say unto you.’ A comparison of it with Mk. xiii. 9-13 
will show that it cannot have been spoken in connexion with the 
first mission of the Twelve. But the concluding words are not 
easy to explain. The persecuted disciples are to flee, ‘for ye 
shall not have gone through the cities of Israel, till the Son of 
Man be come’ (23). At least four things are open to question. 
What is the meaning of ‘gone through’ (τελέσητε), of ‘the cities 
of Israel,’ of ‘the Son of Man,’ of ‘come’? ‘Gone through’ is 
often understood as meaning ‘gone through in your missionary 
efforts’: you will not have pveached in all the cities of Israel. 
No lives must be needlessly sacrificed, for even all will not 
suffice to visit every town in Palestine in the short time at your 
disposal. Or again, ‘gone through’ may mean ‘ thoroughly won 
over’: you will not have completely converted all these cities. 
There is not very much difference between these two explana- 
tions; but there is a third which is quite different. ‘Gone 
through’ may mean ‘exhausted in your frequent flights’: you 
will not have used as places of refuge all these cities. You need 
not be afraid to fly as often as you are persecuted, for there are 
enough cities to last you till the Son of Man comes. This 
makes intelligible sense, but the solemn language used seems to 
require one of the other interpretations. It need not be doubted, 
however, that ‘ the cities of Israel’ means the towns of Palestine. 
The proposal to understand by it all the cities in which there were 
any Jews would hardly have been made, except for the purpose 
of avoiding the difficulty caused by the delay of Christ’s coming. 
In the many centuries which have elapsed since the words were 
spoken it would have been quite easy to have preached in all 
the cities of Palestine. The remaining two points may be taken 
together. “In this Gospel the coming of the Son of Man is 
always a final coming after His death to inaugurate the King- 
dom” (Allen). It is evident that in some way Christ’s words 
produced the impression that He would return soon. When 
that impression had been produced, the words themselves 
would be likely to undergo modification. Moreover, the 
coming to establish the Kingdom may have been confused with 
the coming to judgment. The nearness of the Kingdom may 
have been transferred to the other coming. We may suspect 
that the reports of His utterances respecting the Second Advent 
have become blurred in transmission. 


154 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 8. MATTHEW [Χ. 24-26 


Some important witnesses (Ὁ L, Syr-Sin. a Ὁ k Arm.) after ‘ flee into the 
next’ insert ‘and if they persecute you in the other flee ye to another.’ If 
this is genuine, the third interpretation of τελέσητε becomes more probable. 


The general topic of persecution connects the utterances 
which follow (24-33) with those just recorded. There is nothing 
to show the occasion on which they were uttered! The first 
(24, 25) seems to have been spoken several times and with 
different meanings. Here the point is that the disciple must 
not expect better treatment than his master; so also Jn. xv. 20, 
which was a different occasion. In Lk. vi. 49 the meaning 
appears to be that disciples are not likely to get nearer to the 
truth than their teachers do,*and consequently teachers must 
seek knowledge, especially knowledge of self. In Lk. xxii. 27 
and Jn. xiii. 16 the meaning is that disciples must not set them- 
selves above their master. It is difficult to believe that these 
different applications could have been constructed, if the saying 
had been uttered only once; and the theory of repetition has no 
difficulty. Was it not likely that Christ would have His favourite 
sayings,—favourite, because fruitful and capable of various 
adaptations? The thought here fits on well to what precedes. 
The disciples will be hated by all for Christ’s sake, and they will 
not wonder at this; they will even glory in it, because Christ 
Himself received similar treatment. Hence His claim to call 
upon them to suffer. ‘Beelzebul’ or ‘ Beelzebub’ is evidently 
used here as a term of bitter reproach or abuse, but how it 
came to be so, and indeed the derivation of the word, are still 
unsolved problems.? Our knowledge of the ideas of New Testa- 
ment times is still sadly meagre. See Nestle in DCG., art. 
‘ Beelzebub.’ 

Next we have sayings which contain ‘ Fear not’ thrice (26, 
28, 31). Lk. has similar sayings (xii. 2-9); but the differences 
are so considerable that the Evangelists can hardly have used 
the same source. Once more we have a saying which Christ 
seems to have uttered more than once, and with different 
applications. Perhaps it was already proverbial before He made 
use of it, Comp. Mk, iv. 22; Lk. viii. 17, xii. 2. In Mk. the 
reference seems to be to teaching in parables; the Gospel is at 
first a mystery, but a mystery to be made known to all the world. 
So also perhaps in Lk. vill, 17. In Lk. xii. 2 the meaning is 
that hypocrisy is foolish as well as wicked, for the truth is sure 
to become known. Here the application seems to be that the 


1See Briggs, The Messzah of the Gospels, pp. 196-200. He gives what he 
considers to be the original of both Mt. and Lk., giving the preference, on 
the whole, to Mt. 

2«*The Syriac Versions and the Latin Vulgate stand alone in ending 
the word with a 6” (Burkitt). 


X. 26-29] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 155 


Apostles are to preach publicly what Christ teaches them in 
private. But both the ‘therefore’ and the ‘for’ are somewhat 
obscure. The ‘therefore’ refers to what precedes. Fear is 
caused by uncertainty. ‘Fear not, therefore, for it is certain 
that they will persecute you as they persecute Me. You are 
fore-warned and fore-armed.’ The ‘for’ refers to what follows. 
‘Deliver your message without reserve, for, like every other 
mystery, the Gospel is sure to be revealed.’ 

The second ‘Fear not’ (28) tells the disciples not to fear 
men who can but kill the body, but to fear Him who can 
sentence both body and soul to destruction in Gehenna.?_ That 
the latter means God need not be doubted. Olshausen, who 
interpreted it of the devil, retracted this view in later editions. 
The change of construction (from μὴ φοβηθῆτε ἀπὸ τῶν ἀποκτ. to 
φοβεῖσθε τὸν Suv., which is the regular construction for fearing 
God) indicates this. We are nowhere told to fear the devil. 
‘Fear God and resist the devil’ is the doctrine of Scripture 
(Jas. iv. 7; 1 Pet. v. 9). The devil tries to bring us to Gehenna, 
but he has no authority to send us there. It is the fear of God, 
not of the devil, that is to enable the disciple to overcome the 
fear of men. Comp. Eph. vi. 10-12; also Hermas, Mand. x11. 
vi. 3; Ascension of Isaiah, v. 10. 

What follows (29-31) confirms the view that it is God 
who is to be feared with a fear that conquers the fear of men. 
Men cannot harm even our bodies without God’s consent ; and 


if God consents, there is good reason, viz. a Father’s love, for our 


being allowed to suffer. The smallest animal does not perish, 
the smallest portion of man’s body (emphasis on ὑμῶν) does not 
fall away, without the will of God. Here again, therefore, there 
is room for another ‘ Fear not.’ 

The contrast in what follows (32, 33) is between the 
judgment-seat of human persecutors and the judgment-seat of 
God. Sometimes Christ is the final Judge of mankind (Jn. v. 
22, ix. 39; 2 Cor. v. 10); here the Father is the Judge, and 
the Son pleads before Him. Only those whom the Son recog- 


1 Another possible interpretation is: ‘ Deliver your message without fear, 
for the lies and plots of your opponents will all be exposed at the last day.’ 
Quidguid latet apparebit, Nil inultum remanebit, as we have in the Dzes 
ire of Thomas de Celano, the friend and biographer of S. Francis of 
Assisi. Comp. xii. 36; 1 Cor. iv. 5. 

2 The teaching of Epictetus constantly insisted on the philosopher’s 
freedom from fear of those who can only torture or kill the body. The 
tyrant says, ‘‘ I will put you in chains.” “Με in chains? You may fetter 
my leg, but my will not even Zeus can overpower.” ‘‘ I will throw you into 
prison.” ‘*My poor body, you mean.” ‘‘I will cut your head off.” 
** When have I said that my head cannot be cut off?” These are the things 
on which philosophers should meditate, and in which they should exercise 
themselves (Discourses, 1. i.). Comp, Eur, Bac, 492-499. 


156 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [X. 29-38 


nizes as His are safe.1 For ‘deny’ Mk. (ix. 38) has ‘be ashamed 
of’: comp. Rev. iii. 8. 

The prediction that, in the bitterness of religious hate, the 
nearest of kin will persecute one another (21), is now illustrated 
by other sayings of Christ respecting the dissensions which the 
Gospel will produce in society. ‘Think not,’ as in v. 17, implies 
that some were likely to think this.2 It was the general ex- 
pectation of the Jews that the Messiah would establish a reign 
of peace. But peace cannot be enforced. Open hostility can 
be put down by force; but good will can come only by voluntary 
consent. So long as men’s wills are opposed to the Gospel, there 
can be no peace. Sometimes the only way to peace is through 
war. Once more Christ guards His disciples against being under 
any illusions. They have entered the narrow way, and it leads 
to tribulation before leading to eternal life. The parallels in Lk. 
(xil. 51-53, xiv. 26, 27) seem to come from a different source: 
Lk. has no parallel to ver. 36.3 

Does ‘take his cross and follow after Me’ (38) imply that 
He who leads the way carries //7s cross? It is a strange picture 
of the procession to the Messianic Kingdom. This is the first 
mention in Mt. of the cross, and it must have startled Christ’s 
hearers ; for Jews, especially in Galilee, knew well what the cross 
meant. The supporters of Judas and Simon had been crucified 
by hundreds (Jos. “412. xvi. x. 10). The person to be crucified 
carried his own cross, or at least the cross-beam, to the place of 
execution. It is as an instrument of death that it is used here, 
as ver. 39 shows. ‘The saying is given by Mt. again xvi. 24, 25 = 
ΜῈ ὙΠ 34535 — Lk. ix 25, ζ΄. Lk. xiv. 27 seems ato abe 
different from both: so that we have three variations of the 
saying, which may have been uttered more than once. Such 
a saying would be remembered, and might be transmitted in 
more than one form. In all five passages we have ‘zs cross’ 
(in Lk. xiv. 27, ‘his oz cross’), which implies that every one 
has a cross to take; no one can carry it for him. And, as 
the next verse shows, to refuse to take one’s cross does not 
secure one from suffering. 

It is impossible to reproduce the phrases for ‘findeth his 
life’ and ‘loseth his life’ in English, owing to the different 
meanings, or rather the combination of meanings, in the Greek 
word (ψυχή). It includes the meanings of ‘life’ and ‘soul,’ and 

1 On the remarkable construction ὁμολογεῖν ἔν τινι, which is in both Mt. 
and Lk., see J. H. Moulton, Grammar of N.T. Greek, vol. i. p. 10453 with 
the meaning comp. Rev. iii. 5. These verses (32, 33) show plainly who is 
to be feared in ver. 28. 

2 With ‘I came,’ as implying the pre-existence of the Messiah, comp. v. 17 


and see xi. 27. 
ὃ On νύμφη see Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 123. 


X. 39-42] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 157 


in varying shades. The context here shows that the primary 
meaning of the saying is that the confessor who suffers death is 
far happier than the apostate who escapes; but the words have 
many other applications. In general, those whose sole aim 
is to win material prosperity, lose the only life which is worth 
living; and those who sacrifice material prosperity in Christ’s 
service, secure this higher life. Even as regards pleasure, to 
make it one’s constant aim is to fail to obtain it; devotion to 
something else may win it. 

‘For My sake’ is in all four passages (no parallel in Lk. xiv.), 
though some Western texts omit in Mk. vill. 35. Again we 
have a claim which is monstrous if He who makes it is not 
conscious of being Divine. Who is it that is going to own us 
or renounce us before God’s judgment-seat (32, 33)? Who is 
it that promises with such confidence that the man who loses 
his life for His sake shall find it? And these momentous utter- 
ances are spoken as if the Speaker had no shadow of doubt as 
to their truth, and as if He expected that His hearers would at 
once accept them.! What is more, thousands of Christians, 
generation after generation, have shaped their lives by them 
and have proved their truth by repeated experience. Without 
‘for My sake’ the saying occurs Lk. xvii. 33 and Jn. xii. 25. 

The idea of persecution passes out of sight in the three 
sayings (40-42) which Mt. places at the close of the charge to 
the Twelve. These sayings treat of those who receive the 
Gospel, not of those who oppose it. The first of them is found 
ΜΚ. ix. 37 of receiving little children in Christ’s Name: in both 
there is the identification of Christ with Him who sent Him. 
There is also the identification of Christ with His disciples, a 
mystic unity which is still further developed in xxv. 31-45. It 
has already been stated that Christ ‘came’ (v. 17, x. 34); here 
He says that He ‘was sent.’ The idea of a mission runs through- 
out, from the Father to the Son, from the Son to the disciples. 
And every messenger represents him who sent him, so that the 
disciples represent the Son, and therefore the Father. It will 
be observed that these three verses would fit on very well to 
vv. 14, 15. It is possible that we have now got back to words 
which were spoken at the first mission of the Twelve.” 

Missionaries are ‘prophets,’ for they speak for God and 
carry His message; and they are ‘righteous,’ for they preach 
the righteousness which is set forth in the Sermon on the 
Mount, and it is assumed that they practise it. Those who 


1 See Steinbeck, Das gittliche Selbstbewusstsein Jesu, p. 32. 

2See Briggs, Zhe Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 182-186, where he re- 
constructs what may be supposed to have been the original charge to the 
Twelve ; also pp. 238-249, where he reconstructs the charge to the Seventy. 


᾽ 


158 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [Σ. 42, ΧΙ.1 


receive them, because they possess this sacred character, will 
receive the same reward as the missionaries themselves. To 
recognize and reverence noble traits in the characters of others 
is going a long way towards imitating them. To place oneself 
at their service, because of their noble characters, may be to 
equal them in merit. Or again, to support the missionaries 
with sympathy, prayer, and alms, is to enter into their labours 
and share their reward. 

The concluding verse (42) does not come in very well here. 
Mk. (ix. 41) gives the saying in a very different connexion and 
with two notable differences ; ‘you’ for ‘one of these little ones,’ 
and ‘in name that ye are Christ’s’ for ‘in the name of a disciple.’ 
Here ‘you’ would have been more suitable: ‘one of these 
little ones’ comes from Mk. ix. 42.1 Mt. is perhaps quoting 
from memory and has mixed Mk. ix. 41 and 42. But taking 
the saying in the form, and with the context, which Mt. gives 
us, the meaning will be that even the smallest service done to 
one of the disciples, because he is a disciple, is certain of a 
reward from Him whose disciple he is. 

Here again (see on vi. 1) we have the promise of rewards 
for righteousness. The reward is not offered as a motive for 
action; the motive in each case is love and reverence for the 
Prophet, or righteous man, or disciple, and therefore for Him 
whose servant he is. The reward is a support to this motive, 
an encouragement and stimulus. It assures those to whom it 
is promised, that those who honour God in His servants will 
not be forgotten by God. A person whose sole object was to 
get the reward would not be acting ‘in the name of’ a Prophet, 
or righteous man, or disciple; his action would be purely 
selfish. 

If we take vv. 40-42 immediately after vv. 14, 15, then the 
charge to the Twelve ends in a manner very similar to the 
Sermon on the Mount. There the consequences of acting and 
of not acting in accordance with Christ’s teaching are pointed 
out. Here the consequences of not receiving and of receiving 
Christ’s messengers are pointed out. Moreover, in each case 
the transition to what follows is made with the formula, ‘And 
it came to pass when Jesus ended’: comp. vii. 28, xill. 53, 
xix. 1, xxvi. 1. The Greek is the same in all five places; yet 


1 That ‘little one’ was a Rabbinical expression for a disciple, is doubtful. 
Here it seems to mean that the disciples were people of whom the world 
would not take much account. In comparison with the Prophets and saints 
of the Old Testament, they would seem to be very insignificant. And their 
mission was to be short, probably only a few weeks ; so they would have no 
great opportunity of making a name for themselves. _ It is possible that every- 
where (xviii. 6, 10, 14; Mk. ix. 42; Lk. xvii. 2) ‘one of these little ones’ 
means ‘one of My disciples’: DCG., art. ‘ Little Ones.’ 


XI. 2, 8] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 159 


even the RV. gives three different translations of ἐτέλεσεν : 
‘ended,’ ‘had made an end,’ ‘had finished.’ See on vii. 28, 


Characteristic expressions in ch, x.: λεγόμενος (2), πορεύεσθαι (6, 7), 
ἡμέρα κρίσεως (15), ἰδού (16), φρόνιμος (16), ἡγεμών (18), ὥρα ἐκείνη (19), 
οἰκοδεσπότης (25), γέεννα (28), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (32, 33), εἷς τῶν 
μικρῶν τούτων (42). Peculiar: μαλακία (1), ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (7), 
ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω (16) ; peculiar to this chapter: οἰκιακός (25, 36), διχάζειν (35). 
Excepting to vv. 1-- and a few scattered sayings between vv. 5 and 15, there 
are no parallels in Mk. or Lk.; but, where there are parallels, these ex- 
pressions do not appear in them. In the first ‘Fear not’ (26) there is no 
dispute as to the tense of the verb, φοβηθῆτε, and, although there is difference 
of reading, almost all editors agree that in the last ‘Fear not’ (31) we should 
read φοβεῖσθε. In the intermediate ‘Fear not’ and ‘Fear’ (28) editors are 
not unanimous: perhaps φοβεῖσθε is right in both places. ‘Cease to fear’ 
and ‘continually fear’ make excellent sense. 


XI. 2-XII. 50. J/lustrations of the Misunderstanding and 
Opposition provoked by the Ministry. 


The eleventh chapter has no parallel in ΜΚ. The substance 
of it comes from the Logia, and a good deal of it has parallels 
in Lk. But the relation of Mt. to Lk. is here a difficult problem : 
for possible solutions see Allen. Mt., as usual, is the more 
brief. In narrating the message of the Baptist to the Messiah, 
the two agree as regards the words spoken by John and by Christ, 
but in the narrative portion almost every word in Mt. differs 
from the wording of Lk. 

In his prison at Machzerus, near the north-east end of the 
Dead Sea, John had heard of the works of the Messiah,—those 
works of which Mt. has given striking illustrations. Antipas 
had put him in prison, partly for political reasons, because of the 
excitement which he produced among the people (Jos. Amt. 
Xvill. v. 2), and partly because of the animosity with which 
Herodias regarded him. But having secured his person, Antipas 
did not ill-treat him. He sometimes conversed with him, and 
he allowed his disciples to visit him. It was easy for John to 
hear what Jesus was doing. 

‘Art Zhou He that cometh, or must we look for another?’ 
There is a strong emphasis on ‘Thou’ in contrast to the quite 
different Coming One, who perhaps must be waited for. ‘The 
Coming One’ (6 ἐρχόμενος) is the Messiah (Mk. xi. 9; Lk. 
ἘΠῚ 35, ἘΠῚ 355 Heb. x. $7; Pe. cxvil. 26; Dan. vii. 13). 
John’s question was not asked for the sake of his disciples. 


1 Salmon, however, is inclined to believe that Mk. knew of the message 
of the Baptist and deliberately omitted it (7e Human Element in the Gospels, 
pp- 41, 42). Mt. alone tells us that John was in prison at this time, and he 
alone uses the remarkable expression, ‘the works of the Christ.’ Mt. thus 
shows at the outset that the Baptist is in error. 


160 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XI. 3-6 


Christ’s answer is not addressed to them, but to John. It is 
not clear that they understood the meaning of the message which 
they carried. Then is Tertullian (A/arcion, iv. 18) right in think- 
ing that John’s own faith was failing, because the career of Jesus 
did not seem to correspond with what he himself had foretold ὃ 1 
Possibly, but not probably. John had had such convincing 
evidence that Jesus was the Messiah, that he could hardly doubt 
now. And if he did doubt, what use to send to Jesus? A false 
Messiah would not own that he was animpostor. More probably 
it was John’s patience that was failing, not his faith. He wished 
Jesus to come forward more publicly'and decidedly as the Messiah. 
‘If Thou do these things, manifest Thyself to the world.’ To do 
Messianic works and not claim the position of the Messiah seemed 
to be futile inconsistency. 

The reply of Christ is like that of Tarquinius Superbus to his 
son Sextus at Gabii: the messengers are to report what they have 
seen the person, to whom they were sent, doing. It is a sym- 
bolical message, which their master is to interpret. No care is 
taken that the messengers themselves understand it; it is for 
John to do that. In this message, all the clauses are to be 
understood literally, and they are arranged in three pairs, in 
which the more mighty work is placed first. It is to be remarked 
that all of them are works of mercy: none are works of mere 
power and display, such as the Jews expected the Messiah to 
give as ‘signs.’ It is also to be remarked that the preaching of 
the good tidings to the poor is coupled with the raising of the 
dead as the most convincing evidence of all. John had heard 
in prison of the works of healing; but they did not prove more 
than that Jesus was a great Prophet. The preaching to the poor, 
however, was clearly Messianic (Is. lxi. 1), as He Himself declared 
at Nazareth (Lk. iv. 18-21). It was a new thing that the poor, 
who were commonly neglected and despised as worthless and 
ignorant, should be invited into the Kingdom. John is to be 
assured that Jesus is still carrying on the message that the 
Kingdom is at hand and is open to all. This is sufficient, and 
John is told nothing further about the Messiahship of Jesus.” 
But note the warning which follows. 

‘Blessed is he’ (6) shows plainly enough that it is John who 
is under consideration. Had the reference been to his disciples, 
we should have had, ‘Blessed are they’ (v. 3-10). What a 
strange revelation respecting the Messiah, that not to take offence 
at His conduct is accounted a blessed thing. Character Messie@ 
id ipsum, quod multi in eo scandalizentur (Bengel) ; so certain was 


1 John had heralded a Messiah who would be severe in judging sinners, 
and Jesus had not shown Himself as such. 
2 See Sanday, Zhe Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 57+ 


| 
| 


ΧΙ. 6-11] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 161 


He to be misunderstood. Z¢re méconnu, méme par ceux qu'on 
aime, Cest la coupe @amertume et la croix de la vie; Cest ce qui a 
di serrer le plus souvent le cwur du Fils de Phomme. Dieu aussi, 
lui surtout, est le grand méconnu, le souverainement incompris 
(Amiel). In some way even the Baptist had found some occasion 
of stumbling in Jesus. 

What follows confirms this. It is about John, not about his 
disciples, that our Lord at once begins to speak (7), and He 
speaks in terms of high praise. In society men are commonly 
praised to their face, or the faces of their friends, and blamed 
behind their backs. Jesus does the opposite in the case of 
John. As soon as his messengers are gone, Christ proceeds to 
remove from the minds of the multitudes the thought that, 
because He has sent a rebuke to the Baptist, therefore the latter 
has fallen from his high estate. On the contrary, he is one of 
the greatest of men. Such testimony from such lips is unique, 
and it may almost be called the funeral oration of the Baptist, 
for not long afterwards Herodias compassed his death. 


The first question might be punctuated thus: ‘Why went ye out into 
the wilderness? to behold a reed shaken by the wind ?? And so Jerome 
takes it. Quzd, inguit, extstts in desertum? numquid ad hoc ut, ete. 
Nevertheless, this is less probable than the usual division of the clauses. 
And in either case we-may understand the words either literally or meta- 
phorically. ‘Did you go out merely to see waving rushes?’ ‘Did you 
make a pilgrimage to see a man whom you thought feeble and fickle? Your 
taking all that trouble shows that you thought very differently of him.’ The 
second question mst be taken literally, and this is a reason for taking the 
first literally. ‘Did you go all that way to see a luxurious worldling like 
Herod Antipas, who put John in prison?’ In Jos. 8. 7. 1. xxiv. 3 ‘royal 
robes’ are contrasted with those ‘ made of hair.’ 

In the third question authorities are again divided as to the punctuation 
of the words and the meaning of the Tf. ‘ But what went ye out for to see? 
a Prophet?’ (AV.). ‘But wherefore went ye out? To see a Prophet?’ (RV.). 
The AV. is probably right. It is reasonable to translate the Ti in the same 
way in all three questions, not ‘what’ in two and ‘wherefore’ or ‘why’ in 
one, or vice versa. 


Certainly the multitudes made the pilgrimage into the 
wilderness because they believed that Jehovah had once more 
granted a Prophet to His people. And Jesus declares that 
John was not only that, but the Forerunner of the Messiah. He 
applies to him Mal. iii. 1, which was one of the commonplaces 
of Messianic prophecy, and which seems to have been current 
in a form differing from both the Hebrew and the Septuagint. 


Neither the Hebrew nor the Septuagint has ‘before Thy face,’ which all 
three insert after ‘My messenger.’ All three have ἀποστέλλω for ἐξαποστέλλω, 
ὅς for καί, and κατασκευάσει for ἐπιβλέψεται. 


‘Among them that are born of women’ (11) is a solemn 
11 


102 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XI. 11-14 


periphrasis for the whole race of mankind.! John’s office and 
mission was higher than that of any of his predecessors. He not 
only prophesied of the Messiah, he was His Herald, and pointed 
Him out as come.? But he was not within the Kingdom which 
he announced; and, in the Kingdom, the humblest members 
are higher than the greatest of those who are not members. In 
spiritual privileges and knowledge Christians are above John. 
He is the friend of the Bridegroom ; they are His spouse. 

It is not quite certain whether, in what follows (12-15), we 
have a continuation of Christ’s words, or a comment of the 
Evangelist’s. ‘From the days of John the Baptist until now’ 
looks like comment. On the other hand, Mt. seems to give 
them as spoken by Christ. If so, they were probably spoken on 
some other occasion. Lk. (xvi. 16) has part of the utterance 
differently arranged, but he has no parallel to ver. 14. He has 
‘the Law and the Prophets’ in the usual order. Why does Mt. 
write ‘the Prophets and the Law’? But it is not easy to see 
the connexion between the violent pressing into the Kingdom 
and the statement about the Prophets and the Law; yet ‘for’ 
implies close connexion. ‘Whatever else these difficult words 
contain, at least they express that a new period, that of the 
kingdom of heaven, had set in after what are called the days of 
John the Baptist, and that his preaching had led to a violent and 
impetuous thronging to gather round Jesus and His disciples, a 
thronging in which our Lord apparently saw as much unhealthy 
excitement as true conviction” (Hort, /wdaistic Christianity, p. 
26). But the strength of the movement, however faulty it might 
be in individual cases, was evidence of John’s influence: his 
inspiration must be from above. Yet even he had something 
of the spirit of violence; in his impatience, he wanted the 
Messiah to hurry the work, just as Elijah wanted Jehovah to be 
more rigorous with idolaters.? 

‘If ye are willing to receive it’ (14) indicates that there was 
much unwillingness. With all their enthusiasm for a new 


1 Comp. Job xiv. 1, xv. 14, Xxv. 4 

2 ες The principle on which John’s superiority to the whole prophetic order 
is based is that nearness to Jesus makes greatness. In that long procession 
the King comes last, and the highest is he who walks in front of the Sovereign ” 
(Maclaren). On the other hand, John’s inferiority to the humblest in the 
Kingdom lies in the fact that they know, as he did not, how Christ’s character 
reveals God’s mercy and love no less than His justice. Cyril of Jerusalem 
says John was the end of the Prophets and the firstfruits of the Gospel-state, 
the connecting link between the two Dispensations ; but Cyril insists more 
on John’s superiority to Enoch, Moses, Elijah, and Jeremiah than on his 
inferiority to all Christians (Cav. ili. 6). 

3 See Deissmann, Bzb/e Studies, p. 258. Zahn contends that here 
βιάζεται, as in Lk., is middle, not passive: ‘the Kingdom forces its way,’ 
like a rushing, mighty wind. 


XL 15-19] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 163 


Prophet, the people had not appreciated John (Mk. ix. 13). 
His stern demand for repentance, and for conduct worthy of a 
penitent, was not liked by many ; and his declaration that descent 
from Abraham gave no claim to admission into the Kingdom was 
disliked by nearly all. ΤῸ recognize John as the Elijah predicted 
by Malachi would mean that his authority to proclaim these un- 
welcome truths was admitted. ‘If yeare willing’ (εἰ θέλετε) must 
not be supposed to mean that it does not much matter. That 
it matters very much indeed is shown by the concluding refrain, 
‘He that hath ears to hear, let him hear’ (xili. 9, 43). They 
are a warning against neglect of the fulfilment of prophecy.? 

The parable which follows is given by Lk. (vii. 31-35) with 
a different introduction. It is aimed at the formalists among 
the Jews, and the Pharisees in particular. These are the children 
sitting in the market-place and finding fault. . The Baptist comes 
in his sternness, and they want him to play at festivals. Jesus 
comes, taking part in social joy, and they want Him to play at 
funerals. Nothing that varies from their own narrow rules meets 
with their approbation. They doubt whether John is a Prophet, 
and they are convinced that Jesus is not the Messiah, because 
neither conforms to their preconceived ideas. They said that 
John was possessed by a demon of moroseness ; and later they 
said much the same of Christ (Jn. vii. 20, vill. 48, x. 20; comp. 
Mt. xii. 24). They disliked the message of both. 

‘And yet Wisdom was justified at the hands of her children,’ 
or ‘by her works.’ If ‘children’ be the right reading here, as 
it certainly is in Lk. vii. 35, we must not translate ‘against her 
children’ (ἀπὸ τῶν τέκνων αὐτῆς). The difficult sentence should 
not be interpreted to mean that Wisdom is vindicated from the 
attacks of her children. If ‘works’ is right, such an interpreta- 
tion is impossible. Assuming ‘children’ as correct, the children 
of the Divine Wisdom are the righteous few who welcomed both 
the Forerunner and the Messiah, recognizing that each of them 
had been sent by the Divine Wisdom, and were under its guidance 
in adopting different manners of life and of action. The as- 
ceticism of John, and the absence of asceticism in Jesus, were 
equally right in the several cases. But, if ‘ works’ is correct, the 
meaning is that in both cases the method of operation has been 
justified by results ; 2.6. it is certain to be justified.” 


1 ΤῈ is clear from this passage and Mk. ix. 13 that it was our Lord who 
called the Baptist ‘Elijah.’ John himself did not know that he was Elijah 
(Jn. i. 21). It is also clear that Christ had an esoteric element in His 
teaching, which all had not earsto hear. Sanday, The Life of Christ in Recent 
Research, p. 82. 

2 Comp. ‘I have overcome the world’ (Jn. xvi. 33), where the event is* 
regarded as so sure to happen that it is spoken of as past. ‘ Justified’ means 
4 declared to be right’: Kennedy, Sources of N,7. Greek, p. 104. 


Ι64(Ὦ GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XI. 19-21 


Although ἔργων is powerfully supported (δὲ Β, texts known to Jerome, 
later Syriac), and the assimilation to τέκνων in Lk. is probable, yet τέκνων 
has the support of older authorities (D, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Lat-Vet. Vulg.). 
But most editors regard ἔργων as original. See Zahn, ad /oc., footnote on 
P- 432, and Hznlectung, i. 312. 

Some think that the variation between τέκνα and ἔργα may have arisen 
through the confusion of two similar Aramaic words, one of which means 
‘servant’ (wats) and the other ‘work.’ In 2 Esdr. vii. 64 there is a some- 
what similar case: ‘ Longsuffering. for that He long suffereth those that have 
sinned, as His creatures.” Here the Latin text has guasd suds oferibus ; but 
the Ethiopic, ‘as to His sons,’ and the Syriac, ‘ because we are His servants.’ 
Nestle, Zextwal Cretictsm, p. 251; Salmon, Some Thoughts on Text. Crit. 
p- 121; Scrivener (Miller), ii. p. 325. It is more probable, however, that 
the substitution of ἔργα for τέκνα is due to the mention of Christ’s ‘ mighty 
works’ (δυνάμεις) in vy. 20-24. 

It seems probable that, in the preceding paragraphs (2-19), Mt. has put 
together three Logia, which are quite distinct, but are all connected with the 
Baptist (2-11, 12-15, 16-19). Lk. places the first and third in juxtaposition 
(vil. 18-28, 29-35), but he puts the intermediate one much later (xvi. 16). 
The refrain, ‘He that hath ears, let him hear,’ occurs thrice in Mt. (xi. 15, 
ΧΙ, 9, 43), twice in Mk. (iv. 9, 23, not vii. 16), and twice in Lk. (viii. 8, 
xiv. 35), not at all in Jn. 

For further suggestions respecting ver. 19 see the Jour. of Th. St., April 
1904, p. 455; Bruce, Zhe Parabolic Teaching of Christ, pp. 414-426. 

The verses (20-27) which follow the parable of the children in the market- 
place, when compared with the parallels in Lk. (x. 13-15, 21, 22), show us 
once more that Mt. groups his material according to subject, and not accord- 
ing to time and place. In Lk. the reproach to the cities that had rejected 
Him is appended to the charge to the Seventy, and the exultation over God’s 
preference of the disciples is placed after the return of the Seventy. These 
two sections come in here as illustrations of the different effects which the 
Ministry of the Messiah had upon those who came in contact with it. _We 
have had its effects on John (2), and on those who criticized both Him and 
John (16), and now we have its effect on the arrogant cities and on the humble 
disciples. The ‘Then’ in ‘Then began He’ is not a note of time: the re- 
mark is inserted by Mt. to form a means of transition from one saying of 
Christ to another. And the translation ‘wherein sos¢ of His mighty works 
were done,’ is probably an exaggeration of the Greek (ai πλεῖσται δυνάμεις 
αὐτοῦ), which need not mean more than ‘ His many miracles’ (Blass, § 44, 4), 
and this also is all that plurcme virtutes ejus (Vulg.) need mean. Mt. would 
be unlikely to say that most of the mighty works wrought by the Messiah 
resulted in the impenitence of those who witnessed them. 


We know nothing about Chorazin, except what is told us here 
and in the parallel in Lk.!. The precise form of the name and 
its derivation, as in the case of ‘Beelzebub,’ are uncertain. 
Another illustration of the meagreness of our knowledge of 
Judaism in the time of Christ. And yet He was very active in 
Chorazin ; showing how much, not only of His life, but even of 
the few years of the Ministry, is unrecorded (Jn. xxi. 25). For 


1 The reason why we are told nothing about our Lord’s work in Chorazin 
may be that it took place before the call of S. Peter, which is the starting- 
point of the Gospel narrative of Christ’s Ministry in Galilee (Salmon, Zhe 
Human Element, p. 297). 


XI. 21-25] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 165 


the probable sites of Chorazin and Bethsaida see Sanday, Sacred 
Sites of the Gospels, pp. 24, 41. Of these two cities the paradox 
was true, that though the Kingdom of God had come nigh to 
them, yet they were far from the Kingdom of God. Tyre and 
Sidon are often denounced for their wickedness (Is. xxiii. ; 
Jer. xxv. 22, xlvil. 4; Ezek. xxvi. 3-7, xxviii. 12-22). In the 
denunciation of Capernaum, where Christ» had not only done 
many works, but lived and taught, ‘Heaven’ and ‘ Hades’ (not 
Gehenna) symbolize the height of glory and the depth of shame 
(Is. xiv. 13-15). The very site of Capernaum is still a matter of 
dispute, and all three towns have long since been in ruins (Jos. 
B. } πὶ. x. το; Renan, L’Antechrist, p. 277; Tristram, Bible 
Places, p. 267 ; Sanday, Sacred Sites, p. 37). The sin of these 
flourishing places was not violence or sensuality, but indifference. 
There is no evidence that they opposed or ridiculed Christ ; but 
His work made no impression on them. They perhaps took a 
languid interest in His miracles and teaching ; but His beneficence 
never touched their hearts, and His doctrine produced no change 
in their lives. Self-satisfied complacency, whether in the form of 
Pharisaic self-righteousness or in that of popular indifference, is 
condemned by Christ more severely than grosser sins. A life 
that externally is eminently respectable may be more fatally 
antichristian than one that is manifestly scandalous. For the 
comparison with Sodom comp. x. 15. The confidence with 
which Jesus utters His judgments as being identical with the 
Divine judgments is all the more impressive from its being 
implied and not asserted. 


The evidence for ‘shalt thou be exalted unto heaven’ (N BCD L, Lat- 
Vet. Vulg. Syr-Cur, Arm. Aeth.) is decisive; so also in Lk. But both 
readings make good sense. It is not quite so certain that ‘thou shalt go 
down’ is right: ‘thou shalt be brought down’ is well supported. 


The exultation of Jesus over the Divine Preference shown to 
the disciples is placed by Lk. (x. 21, 22) after the return-of the 
Seventy.! The introductory formula, ‘ Jesus answered and said,’ 
dogs not indicate that the words which follow are a reply to 
anything. ‘ Answered and said’ is common in Hebrew narrative 
as an enlarged equivalent for ‘said’ (xvii. 4, xxviii. 5). Like 
‘He opened His mouth and taught,’ it prepares the way for a 
solemn utterance (Deut. xxi. 7; Job iii. 2; Is. xxi. 9). Dalman, 
Words, p. 24. 

‘I thank Thee’ (ἐξομολογοῦμαί σοι) is literally ‘I acknowledge 
openly to Thy honour’ (Gen. xxix. 35; 2 Sam. xxii. 50; Ps. 
xxx. 4 ; and especially Ecclus. li. 1, 10). See Kennedy, Sources 

1 Lk. expressly states that there was exultation: ἠγαλλιάσατο τῷ Πν. τῷ 
7: 


166 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XI. 25-27 


of ΔΝ. 7. Greek, p. 118. On various occasions Christ recognized 
publicly God as His Father: xv. 13, xvill. 35; Jn. v. 17, Xl. 41, 
xii. 27; Lk. xxill. 34, 46. Here He thanks His Father that 
intellectual power is not necessary for the recognition of the work 
of the Divine Wisdom. He does not mean that intellectual power 
is a barrier to the reception of the Gospel; but it is immaterial: 
all that is required is childlike simplicity. Ignorance is no 
qualification, intellect is no disqualification ; for the qualifications 
are not mental, but moral. The heart, not the head, is the 
home of the Gospel, and the condition of receiving it is lowliness 
of spirit, not strength of brain. Not all clever people are shut 
out from the Kingdom, although some shut themselves out ; for 
it is not intelligence, but the pride of intellectual people, that 
excludes. And not all simple folk are admitted ; for it is not 
stupidity, but the humility of simple-hearted people, that qualifies. 
The psychological laws which God has established manifest the 
very different results of intellectual pride and of intellectual 
humility, and for this Jesus gives thanks. He is not proclaiming 
any necessary connexion between ignorance and religious faith.1 
How does Jesus know that this law, which shuts out such 
‘wise and understanding ” people as the Scribes and Pharisees, while 
it admits such ‘babes’ as the disciples, is in accordance with the 
Divine decrees? The passage (27) in which the answer to this 
question is given is unique in the Synoptic Gospels, although 
such utterances are common in the Fourth Gospel. The verse 
is in both Mt. and Lk., and the reckless scepticism which would 
question its authenticity is based, not upon critical principles, but 
upon prejudice. Such evidence is very unwelcome in some 
quarters, and it is therefore discredited. In his excellent notes 
on the passage Mr. Allen says: “ὙΠῸ occurrence of this verse in 
both Mt. and Lk. even if the two Evangelists borrow from a 
single source, proves that this saying reaches back to an early 
stage of the Gospel tradition. If, as is probable, the two writers 
drew from different sources, this tradition was widespread. If 
we add the fact that a similar use of ‘the Son’—‘the Father’ 
occurs in Mk. xiii. 32, this usage as a traditional saying of Christ 
is as strongly supported as any saying in the Gospels.” Hase 
calls the passage “δὴ aerolite from the Johannean heaven,” but 
adds that it is ‘‘within the range of the vision of S. Paul” 
(Geschichte Jesu, § 61. Seealso Nosgen, Geschichte Jesu Christi, 
Ρ. 475). Even Schmiedel regards this as an original utterance 
of Jesus, and interprets the aorist as meaning that there was a 
particular moment when Jesus discovered that God was His 
Father, a thought which was new to Him, because the idea of 


1On the translation of the aorists ἔκρυψας and ἀπεκάλυψας see J. H, 
Moulton, Gram. of N.7. Gr. i. p. 136. 


XI. 27] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 167 


God as a Father had become extinct among His contemporaries 
(Enc. Bibl. iv. 4697). The importance of this is the admission, 
from such a quarter, that we have here an original utterance of 
Jesus. See Cyril of Jerusalem, Cav. vii. 5, x. 1, 9, xvi. 24. 

Keim speaks of the whole utterance as “this pearl of the 
sayings of Jesus,” points out how frequently and with what 
variations it is quoted, and thinks that the original form of 
ver. 27 probably stood thus: ‘Everything has been delivered 
to Me by My Father. And no one has known the Father except 
the Son, and no one has known the Son except the Father, and 
he to whom He (the Father) is willing to reveal Him.’! The 
desire to make ‘He’ refer to the Son led to various changes. 
But, whatever view may be taken of this minor point, Keim 
remarks on the importance of the evidence which the passage, in 
its simplest form, supplies. “Everything is given over to Him 
by His Father, ze. by the God whom He here for the first time 
calls His Father in a peculiar sense, thereby distinguishing 
between Himself and all other men. . . . He is the first and the 
only one who through Himself and through God has attained to 
the knowledge of God the Father, which no Abraham, no Moses, 
no David and Solomon, no Isaiah and Daniel,—to say nothing 
of the wisdom of that day, had found. In the second place, just 
as He knows God, God on the other hand knows Him; He 
knows God as Father, as Father of men, and yet more as His 
own Father, and God knows Him as Son, as Son among many, 
and yet more as the One among many: and exclusively related 
to one another, each being to the other a holy, unveiled secret, 
worth knowing and discovered by effort ; they mutually approach 
with love in order to discover and to enjoy one another in the 
self-satisfaction of the enjoyment which is based upon the 
similarity of spiritual activity, upon the likeness of essence, of 
nature (Ps. i. 6, cxxxix. 1; Gal. iv. 9; 1 Cor. vill. 3; 2 Tim. ii. 
19). In the third place, this self-enclosed world of the Father 
and the Son opens itself to the lower world, to men, only by its 
own free act, because it wills to open itself and to admit to 
companionship whom it will.” 5 

Harnack (Zhe Sayings of Jesus, pp. 272-310) has subjected 
the passages, Mt. xi. 25-27 = Lk. x. 21, 22, and Mt. 28, 29, toa 
very thorough critical investigation, and is convinced that, with 
certain reservations about Mt. xi. 27 =Lk. x. 22, they must be 

1Justin, 77).),. 100; Afol. i. 63; Iren. 1. xiii. 2, IV. vi. 1; Tert. Adv. 
Marcion. ii. 27, iv. 25; Clem. Hom. xvii. 4, xviii. 4, 11, 13, 15, 20; Recog. 
ii. 47; Clem. Strom. vii. 18. 

* Keim, Jesus of Nazara, iv. pp. 54-64. He protests that ‘there is no 
more violent criticism than that which, since Baur’s time, Strauss has intro- 


duced” of repudiating this passage, because of its testimony to the Divine 
Sonship of Christ. 


168 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [ΧΙ. 27-30 


accepted as genuine utterances of our Lord. “Both sayings 
(ΧΙ. 25-27 and 28, 29)—the second in higher degree—have a 
poetical rhythm, and in their construction remind us of the 
poetical form of sayings in the Psalms and Prophets; but from 
this point of view they are not unique among the sayings of our 
Lord; indeed, not a few have a similar form.” The form in 
which the second saying (28, 29) and the first half of the first 
saying (25, 26) have come down to us may be accepted as the 
most ancient attainable form ; but doubts arise as to the second 
half of the first saying (27). We have many early quotations 
with important variations. 1. Some have παραδέδοται instead of 
παρεδόθη. 2. Some have ἔγνω (cognovit) instead of ἐπιγινώσκει 
(cognoscit). 3. Some place the clause about the Son knowing 
the Father before the clause about the Father knowing the Son. 
4. Some have ‘to whomsoever the Son may reveal Him’ instead 
of ‘to whomsoever the Son willeth to reveal Him.’ There need 
be no doubt that παρεδόθη is the original reading (comp. xxviii. 
18). Harnack contends that ἔγνω is right in Lk., and that in Lk. 
the words καὶ τίς ἐστιν ὃ vids εἰ μὴ ὁ πατήρ Were wanting, and 
therefore were wanting in the authority which both Mt. and Lk. 
used, Yet he admits that the interpolation must be “very 
ancient; jor all our authorities for S. Matthew and all our 
authorittes, except one, for S. Luke have it.’ Indeed this inter- 
polation into the Lukan text ‘must have taken place almost at 
once.” He also admits the probability that during this later 
period of Christ’s Ministry He spoke of Himself as ‘ the Son’ ; 
“because it is absolutely impossible to imagine how He could 
have arrived at the conviction that He was the future Messiah 
without first knowing Himself as standing in an unique relation- 
ship to God.” Harnack thinks that ἀποκαλύψῃ is more likely to 
be original than βούληται ἀποκ. See Camb. Bibl. Ess. p. 300. 
O. Holtzmann would limit ‘all things have been delivered to 
Me’ (πάντα μοι παρεδόθη) to “the handing over of the doctrine, 
and not the delivering over of a vicegerency in the world- 
sovereignty of God” (Life of Jesus, p. 284).1 But the aorist 
points back to a moment in eternity, and implies the pre- 
existence of the Messiah (see on ‘I came,’ v. 17, x. 34). The 
common Jewish idea seems to have been that the Vame of the 
Messiah was present to God from all eternity, but that the 
Messiah Himself was a human Sovereign endowed by God with 
supernatural powers. Sometimes, however, Jewish thought went 
beyond this, and the pre-existence of the Messiah was clearly 
stated, as in the Book of Enoch, where we read that the Son of 


1So also Wellhausen, who regards ‘and no one knoweth the Son but 
the Father’ as an early interpolation. It must be very early to have got into 
all MSS. and Versions. 


ΧΙ. 27-30] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 169 


Man “has been chosen and hidden before Him (God) before 
the creation of the world and for evermore” (xlvili. 6); “the 
Elect One standeth before the Lord of Spirits, and His glory 
is for ever and ever” (xlix. 2); and Enoch’s “name was carried 
aloft during his lifetime to the Son of Man and to the Lord of 
Spirits from amongst those who dwell on the earth” (Ixx. 1). So 
also in the Fourth Book of Esdras: ‘This is the Anointed One, 
whom the most High hath kept unto the end” (xii. 32); “the 
same is He whom the Most High hath kept a great season” 
(xiii. 26); and “no man upon earth can see My Son” 
(xiii. 52). 

The gracious words which follow (28-30) are not in Lk. ; 
they are among the special treasures of the First Gospel. Their 
want of other attestation and their resemblance to Ecclus. li. 23, 
26, 27 have caused some to conjecture that Mt. has invented 
them, with Sirach as a basis. But could Mt. have invented 
them, even with that help? ‘It is not so easy to make new 
Sayings and new Parables like those in the Gospels of Matthew 
and Luke; at least, that kind of speech does not make itself 
heard in the extant remains of what the first four generations of 
Christians wrote” (Burkitt, Ze Gosp. Hist. and its Transmission, 
Ρ. 199). ‘The important thing is to recognise that this is the 
kind of teaching which the Evangelist thought worthy to put in 
his Lord’s mouth, and which the Church accepted as worthy. 
. . . Again and again we find ourselves in the presence of some- 
thing which may or may not be authentic historical reminiscence, 
but is in any case fofally unlike the other remains of early 
Christian literature . . . and we take knowledge of the 
Evangelists that they have been with Jesus” (2214. pp. 
206, 207). 

When we ask what connexion these gracious words have 
with the context, we must remember that this question need 
mean no more than that the Evangelist must have had some 
reason for placing the words here. We cannot be certain that 
WU. 21-30, Or even Vv. 25-30, were spoken as one continuous 
utterance. Lk’s omission of 28-30 points to this being a 
separate saying. If it was such, why did Mt. insert it at this 
point? The last words of ver. 27 give a good connexion. 
Although the Son alone knows the Father, yet He is willing to 
impart some of His knowledge to those who are worthy; and 
forthwith He invites those who are in need of guidance to come 
and learn of Him. A more general connexion lies in the 


1The words which Lk. places immediately after ‘the Son willeth to 
reveal Him’ are a better sequence than ‘Come unto Me,’ etc. Lk. has: 
‘Blessed are the eyes which see the things that ye see,’ etc. (x. 23, 24), 
which Mt. has xiii, 16, 


170 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ΞΙ. 28-30 


contrast between the wise and understanding Scribes and 
Pharisees who rejected Christ’s teaching, and the childlike 
disciples who accepted it, and thus proved themselves children 
of the Divine Wisdom. ‘The Scribes professed to expound the 
Law as the expression of the will of God; but Christ has 
received authority to reveal God Himself to those who feel their 
need of Him. The Scribes could not give the rest to souls 
which He can promise (note the emphatic κἀγώ). ‘They bind 
heavy burdens (φορτία) and grievous to be borne, and lay them 
on men’s shoulders’ (xxiii. 4); but His burden is light. This 
shows that ‘heavy laden’ (πεφορτισμένοι) does not refer primarily 
to the load of sin, but to the burdens which Pharisaic interpre- 
tations of the Law imposed, and which, after all, gave no relief 
to men’s consciences. From Christ’s teaching and life men 
could learn the nature of the righteousness which is in accord- 
ance with God’s will. It is the righteousness of a meek and 
lowly heart, not of external observances. Exalted as Christ is 
through His relation to the Father, He is also related to us 
through His perfect humanity, and from His human life and 
character we can learn by imitation.1. And it is the possibility 
of imitating Him that makes His yoke easy and His burden light, 
for He has borne both Himself. Moreover, He has not only set 
us an example of bearing, He helps us to follow it. There must 
be a yoke and a burden, for a lofty ideal, such as He sets before 
us, is exacting ; but a lofty ideal is also inspiring, and that makes 
the yoke easy and the burden light. 

There are two pairs of expressions in this invitation which 
seem to balance one another: ‘all ye that labour and are heavy 
laden,’ and ‘Come unto Me; take My yoke upon you.’ 
‘labouring’ (κοπιῶντες) is not the same as being ‘heavy laden 
(πεφορτισμένοι). The one implies toil, the other endurance. 
The one refers to the weary search for truth and for relief for 
a troubled conscience; the other refers to the heavy load of 
observances that give no relief, and perhaps also to the sorrows 
of life, which, apart from the consolations of a true faith, are so 
crushing.2 To those who are worn out with resultless seeking 
Christ says: ‘Come unto Me, and J/ will refresh you.’ ‘To those 


1 We ought probably to translate ‘and learn from Me ¢ha¢ I am meek’ 
(μάθετε am’ ἐμοῦ ὅτι mpais εἶμι). Inthe Testaments we have a similar combina- 
tion of terms: ἐστὶ yap ἀληθὴς καὶ μακρόθυμος, πρᾷος καὶ ταπεινός (Daz vi. 
9); but the passage looks like a Christian interpolation, of which there are 
many. 

2 The word for ‘easy’ (χρηστός) is applied to God (Lk. vi. 35; Rom. ii. 
43 1 Pet. ii. 3) to express His gracious goodness and longsuffering. Here 
the Latin Versions have szavzs, but in other places they vary between 
benignus, suavis, and dulcis. ‘My yoke is good to bear,’ is the meaning ; 
it brings a blessing to those who accept it, 


| 


σον 


XI. 29, 80] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE I7I 


who are weighed down with unprofitable burdens He says: 
‘Take My yoke upon you.’ 

In using the metaphor of a yoke, Christ was probably employ- 
ing an expression which was already proverbial. In the Psalms 
of Solomon, which are a little earlier than the time of Christ, we 
have: “We are beneath Thy yoke for evermore, and beneath 
the rod of Thy chastening ” (vii. 8); and “ He shall possess the 
peoples of the heathen to serve Him beneath His yoke ” (xvii. 32). 
“The yoke” was a common Jewish metaphor for discipline or 
obligation, especially in reference to the service of the Law. 
Thus, in the Apocalypse of Baruch: “ For lo! I see many of 
Thy people who have withdrawn from Thy covenant, and cast 
from them the yoke of Thy Law” (xli. 3). Comp. Lam. iii. 27 ; 
Ecclus. li. 26; Acts xv. 10; Gal. v. 1; Pirge Adoth, iii. 8. In 
the Didache (vi. 2) we have “the whole yoke of the Lord,” which 
probably means the Law in addition to the Gospel. Mackinlay 
thinks that the easy yoke and light burden point to a sabbath 
year as the time of utterance. At that time there would be no 
tilling, and the oxen would have little to do. This may have 
suggested the metaphor (Zhe Mag?, p. 113). But so obvious a 
metaphor hardly needs such suggestion. 

This triplet of sayings (25, 26; 27; 28-30) is beyond the 
invention of any Evangelist. ‘The words are their own authentica- 
tion. At what time and in whose presence they were uttered, 
are questions of little moment. They are addressed to the 
whole human race throughout all time, and he who understands 
them “has found his way to the heart of Christianity ” (Sanday). 
Coming immediately after the Woes on the unrepenting cities, 
they are all the more impressive. Within the compass of eleven 
verses we have striking examples of both the severity and the 
gentleness of Christ in His dealings with men. And side by 
side with these we have a revelation of that which explains this 
strange combination of sternness and compassion in the Son of 
Man—His unique relation to the God who is both Judge of all 
and Father of all. 


The third saying (28, 29) has various points of contact with the O.T., especi- 
ally with Isaiah and Jeremiah: comp. Is. xiv. 3, 25, xxviii. 12, xxxii. 17, 
xlii. 2, 3; lv. 15; Jer. vi. 16, xxxi. 25. In Jer. vi. 16 we have καὶ εὑρήσετε 
ἁγνισμὸν ταῖς ψυχαῖς ὑμῶν. If ἀνάπαυσιν is not an independent translation 
from the Hebrew of Jer. vi. 16, and if we are to seek a source for it in 
previous writings, then Ecclus. li. 27 may have suggested it. Comp. the 
Homily attributed to Clement of Rome (2 Clem. 5) : ‘‘ The promise of Christ is 
great and marvellous, even the rest (ἀνάπαυσις) of the Kingdom that shall be.” 

In ch. xi. we have the following expressions, which are characteristic of 
Mt. and are not found in the parallels in Lk. : μεταβαίνειν (1), ἐκεῖθεν (1), 
πορεύεσθαι (7), ἰδού (19), τότε (20), ἡμέρα κρίσεως (22, 24), δεῦτε (28). 
Peculiar to Mt. : ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (11, 12), ἐν ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (25), 
ἑταῖρος (16) ; βιαστής (12) is not found elsewhere in the N.T. 


172 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ XII. 1 


In the twelfth chapter the Evangelist continues his illustra- 
tions of the misconceptions and hostility to which the Ministry 
of the Messiah was exposed. We have had the Baptist’s mis- 
understanding of the Messiah’s work, and the persistent disregard 
and indifference with which it was treated in Chorazin, Bethsaida, 
and Capernaum. Here we have three illustrations of Pharisaic 
antagonism, exhibited with increasing vehemence, and culmin- 
ating in a charge of working in league with Beelzebub. The 
two first illustrations have reference to Christ’s attitude towards 
the sabbath. 

We now return to the Gospel of Mk. (ii. 23). Thrice just 
in this part of his work does Mt. exchange his characteristic 
‘Then’ at the beginning of a narrative for ‘At that season’ 
(xi. 25, xll. 1, xiv. 1), a phrase not found in any other Gospel.! 
The ‘season’ in this case must have been shortly before harvest, 
and about a year before the last Passover. Our Lord was 
walking in front of His disciples, who plucked and ate the corn 
as they followed. This was allowed (Deut. xxiii. 25), and the 
Pharisees do not accuse the disciples of stealing. But plucking 
and rubbing the ears was accounted by the Scribes as reaping, 
threshing, and winnowing, and thus was of the nature of work 
or business Sh as was forbidden on the sabbath Ga 
Life and Times, 11. pp. 56, 780; Klostermann on Mk. ii. 23 ; 
Driver on Deut. xxiii, 25). On this the Pharisees See In 
Mt. and Mk. they attack the disciples through the Master, just 
as in ix. 11 (= Mk. ii. 26) they attacked the Master through the 
disciples.” 

Our Lord does not deny that rest on the sabbath is com- 
manded, and He does not stay to protest against the rigour 
which would make plucking and eating corn a violation of the 
command. He points out that every rule has its limitations, 
and that ceremonial regulations must yield to the higher claims 
of charity and necessity. This the Old Testament itself showed, 
by the analogous case of David and the shewbread,* and the 
still stronger case of the Priests and the sabbatical sacrifices. 
In the latter case violation of the rule of resting on the sabbath 
was not merely allowed but commanded ; indeed on the sabbath 
the sacrificcs and consequent labour were increased. See Gray, 
Numbers, p. 406. In the mcident about David, Mt. corrects 


1¢Then,’ however, remains frequent: vv. 13, 22, 38, 44, 45, xiii. 36. 

2In both places Lk. (v. 30, vi. 2) represents them as attacking the 
disciples only. Here all three have ‘and they that were with him,’ which 
has special point in reference to the disciples. 

5. The analogy was closer than they could see,—the analogy between 
David and his followers in need of food and the Son of David and His 
followers in need of food. Christ could have fed His disciples miraculously, 
but He does not use supernatural means, when natural means are available. 


XII. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 173 


the slip of Mk. by omitting ‘When Abiathar was high priest’; 
for Ahimelech was high priest when it took place (1 Sam. xxi. 1). 
See Gould, ad Joc. p. 49. The second argument about the 
priests in the Temple is not in Mk. or Lk., and it may be a 
saying that was uttered on a different occasion, but which Mt. 
introduces here because it has reference to the sabbath.! Its 
point here is that, if the sabbath-rest may every week give way 
to the ceremonial requirements of sacrifices, still more may it 
in exceptional cases give way to the moral requirements of 
charity. People need not faint for want of food in order to 
abstain from working on the sabbath. The quotation of 
Hos. vi. 6, ‘I desire mercy, and not sacrifice,’ has already been 
made, ix. 13, and it is very suitable in both places. We may 
believe that such words were often cited by our Lord. 

‘The Son of Man is lord of the sabbath’ is in all three. 
The sequence of thought is plainest in Mk. The sabbath was 
made for man, and therefore is subject to the ideal Man, who 
represents the race and has authority to determine the way in 
which the principle of the sabbath can best be carried out for 
man’s benefit. Christ is not claiming authority to abolish the 
sabbath. The sabbath was the ordinance of God for the good, 
not merely of Israel, but of all mankind. But the traditional 
methods of observing it were of man’s devising, and these must 
yield to circumstances. By connecting the sabbath with bene- 
volence, Christ was fulfilling its fundamental purpose. See 
Hort, Judaistic Christianity, p. 33; also Gould, p. 50. The 
Pharisees had made the sabbath an institution so burdensome 
that its Divine character was lost sight of: this could best be 
restored by showing that it was a blessing and not a burden. 
The Son of Man vindicates man’s freedom. 


In ver. 6 the neuter, ‘a greater ¢hing,’ ‘something greater,’ ‘ more than 
the Temple is here’ is certainly the true reading ; not the masculine, ‘ one 
greater than the Temple.’ Perhaps the meaning is the same, viz. the 
Messiah. Bnt the masculine would have revealed Jesus as the Messiah in a 
more definite way than He is likely to have employed. The neuter might 
mean the Ministry of proclaiming the Kingdom of God. The work of Christ 
and His disciples was of more account than the Temple. For μεῖζον (comp. 
xi. 9) NBD, etc., for μείζων (an obvious correction) L A, Vulg. 

This passage (1-8) is one of those in which Mt. and Lk. agree in notable 
particulars against Mk. (see on ix. 17, 20). Here both omit the ambiguous 
ὁδὸν ποιεῖν and the inaccurate ἐπὶ ᾿Αβιάθαρ ἀρχιερέως, and both insert that the 


1 Both arguments are introduced with the question, ‘ Did ye not read?’ 
or, ‘Have ye not read?’ When Christ addressed illiterate multitudes, He said, 
“Υε have heard’ (v. 21, 27, 33, 38, 43). When He addresses the Pharisees 
or other educated persons who made a study of the Law, He speaks of their 
reading : xix. 4, xxi. 16, 42, xxii. 31. On ol ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως see Deiss- 
mann, Bible Studies, p. 157. For the rigour of the rules about the sabbath 
see the Book of Jubilees, 1, 9-13 ; Edersheim, Life and 7imes, ii. pp. 777 ff. 


174 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [ΧΙ]. 9-14 


disciples ate the grain, an addition which is remarkable in Mt., who often 
omits redundant statements. Both omit ‘the sabbath was made for man, and 
not man for the Sabbath.’ 


Mt. seems to regard the second incident (9-14) as taking 
place on the same sabbath. Jesus leaves His critics, goes into 
their synagogue, and finds them there ready to oppose Him 
again. Lk. makes it another sabbath and perhaps a different 
place; he also says that Christ taught before healing.) Mk. 
and Lk. say that they watched Him whether He would heal 
on the sabbath, and that He asked them whether it was lawful 
to do good on the sabbath. Mt. omits the watching, and says 
that they asked Him whether it is lawful to eal on the 
sabbath, to which He replied that it is lawful to do good on the 
sabbath. The argument about the animal in a pit is not in 
Mk., and is given in Lk. in a different connexion (xiv. 1-6), the 
healing of a dropsical man. Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. 
in omitting Christ’s anger and His grief at the hardening of 
their hearts ; also in omitting that the Herodians took part 
in the conspiracy against Jesus.2~ The former omission is 
characteristic of Mt., “who avoids attributing human emotions to 
the Messiah. Comp. viii. 2, 4 with Mk. i. 41, 43, and xiii. 58 
with Mk. vi. 6. See Camb. Bibl. Ess. pp. 429 f. 

Mt. certainly weakens Christ’s argument by substituting 
‘Tt is lawful to do good on the sabbath’ for ‘Is it lawful to do 
good or to do harm? to save a life or to kill?’ To refuse to 
do good is to do evil; and that cannot be right on the sabbath 
or any other day. And while they condemn Him for restoring, 
without any labour, a man’s hand on the sabbath, they have 
no scruple about plotting on the sabbath to kill Him. All this 
is lost in Mt. The whole incident is a striking example of the 
power which formalism has to blind men to the proportion of 
things. Because Christ disregarded, not the Divine Law about 
the sabbath, but their unreasonable regulations as to the method 
of observing the law, they thought it right to try to destroy 
Him. Christ’s method of meeting their casuistry is to be noted. 
He might have urged that there was no breach of sabbatical 
rest in telling a man to stretch out his hand, or in the man’s 
trying to do so. But He puts the matter on the broad principle 
that to heal is to do good, and doing good is a very proper way 
of observing the sabbath. Yet this has no good effect upon 

1 ΤῊ the Gospels the man with the withered hand does not speak. Jerome 
says that in the Gospel which was used by the Nazarenes and Ebionites the 
man took the initiative saying: ‘‘I was a mason, earning my bread with my 
hands. F 1 pray Thee, Jesu, restore my health, that I may not in shame beg 
for food.” 


2Τῃ xxii. 16=Mk. xii. 13, Mt. retains the mention of the Herodians, 
Lk. omits in both places. This miracle took place in Herod’s country. 


.-." 


XII. 17-21] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 175 


the prejudiced formalists. They cannot refute Him; but they 
are sure that one who teaches men to disregard their traditions 
must be a dangerous heretic, and they resolve to destroy Him.! 

His hour was not yet come, and therefore Jesus withdrew 
from the dangerous neighbourhood, and continued His bene- 
ficent works of healing elsewhere (15). The charge that ‘they 
should not make Him known’ (16) is given by Mk. (iii. 12) in 
reference to the unclean spirits who proclaimed Him as the 
Son of God. The time was not yet ripe for a general announce- 
ment that He was the Messiah, and demons were not suitable 
preachers. Here Mt. mentions the charge in order to introduce 
a fulfilment of Is. xlii. 1-4, where the Servant of Jehovah is 
spoken of as the special object of the Divine love, and as 
anointed with the Spirit to judge the heathen. Yet this servant 
does not enter into controversies, nor promote public excitement. 
He is careful not to extinguish any spark of good in men’s hearts, 
but endeavours to lead them on to better things, till truth shall 
prevail; so that even the heathen may be brought to trust in 
Him. This prophecy of the second Isaiah has a very different 
meaning in reference to Cyrus, who is to conquer without 
warlike threatenings, and will not trample on the weak in the 
hour of victory. But the Evangelist sees how much of it is 
true of the Messiah in His bloodless conquest of mankind, and 
he quotes it accordingly.? It is perhaps specially for the sake 
of the concluding words about the Gentiles that Mt. quotes the 
prophecy. For the details of the wording in reference to the 
Hebrew and the Septuagint, see Allen’s note; also for the 
details of the relation of what follows (22-50) to Mk. iii. 22-35 
and to Lk. xi. 14 ff. 

The malign‘ty of the Pharisees is now exhibited in the charge 
that Jesus casts out demons with the aid of Beelzebub the chief 
of the demons. Both Mt. and Lk. make the introduction to 
this charge to be Christ’s casting out the demon from a dumb 
demoniac, Mt. adding that he was blind also.’ ΑἹ] the sufferer’s 


1 The phrase ‘to take counsel’ (συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν) is peculiar to Mt. 
(xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. I, 7, xxvilil. 12). It does not occur elsewhere in the 
N.T. nor in the Septuagint, and in Greek literature the word συμβούλιον is 
rare; Deissmann, δός Studies, p. 238. The phrase means to come to a 
conclusion, rather than to deliberate whether or not. 

3 Zahn shows in detail how the prophecy fits the narrative of the Evange- 
list. ‘This is one of many places in which the A.V. mistranslates ἐλπίζειν 
‘trust’: xii. 21; Lk. xxiv. 21; Jn. v. 45; Rom. xv. 12, 24, etc. 

3 Mt. has already recorded the healing of a dumb-demoniac (ix. 32, 33) 
in words rather similar to those used in Lk. xi. 14 of this miracle. ‘ Dumb’ 
(κωφός) probably means deaf and dumb. Some Old Syriac and Old Latin 
authorities have ‘so that the dumb man spake and saw and heard.’ Note 
how Mt., as compared with Lk, xi. 14, heightens both the miracle and its 
effect on the multitudes. 


176 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW {ΧΊ]. 25-27 
maladies were healed at once, so that the multitudes were 
amazed. In order to counteract the effect of the miracle on 
the people the Pharisees suggested diabolical agency as the 
explanation. In Mk. ill. 20, 21 the introduction is quite different. 
The enthusiasm for Jesus has become so great that He has no 
leisure for a meal, and His friends say that He is beside Himself. 
Then scribes from Jerusalem make the charge of His having 
Beelzebub. The charge is of great interest and importance. 
It is well attested, for it is in Jn. vil. 20 and viii. 48, 52, as well 
as in the Synoptic Gospels; and it is not at all likely to have 
been invented. It shows to what desperate shifts His exasper- 
ated foes were driven. Was it likely that the powers of evil 
would be parties to widespread acts of beneficence? Above all, 
was it likely that they would help Him to vanquish themselves ? 4 
So far from discrediting Him with the people by such an ex- 
planation, the Pharisees merely discredited themselves, both as 
regards intelligence and honesty. All this was patent at the 
time. But what is important for us is that this charge of Christ’s 
being in league with Satan proves that there was something 
extraordinary to explain. If there had not been mighty works 
too remarkable to ignore and too notorious to deny, His enemies 
would never have taken refuge in so extravagant an hypothesis. 
This charge must be set side by side with the Jewish tradition 
that Jesus had brought charms out of Egypt, or had learnt magic 
from Egyptian sorcerers. In both cases we have evidence, uninten- 
tionally given, in support of the miracles wrought by Christ. 

In introducing Christ’s reply to the charge, both Mt. and Lk. 
say that ‘He knew their thoughts,’ without having heard their 
words. Mk. implies that He was too far off to hear what the 
Pharisees said, for ‘He called them unto Him.’ Comp. Mk. 11. ὃ 
= Mt. ix. 4=Lk. v. 22. ΑἹ] three represent Him as substituting 
‘Satan’ for their ‘ Beelzebub.’ In the N.T. Satan is always the 
prince of the demons; in the Book of Enoch the Satans are 
numerous, but are under a chief (xl. 7, where see Charles’s note ; 
Edersheim, Zzfe and Times, ii. 755). ‘If Satan casteth out 
Satan’ does not mean if one Satan casts out another, as is clear 
from what follows. The challenge, ‘If I by Beelzebub cast out 
devils, by whom do your sons cast them out?’ is word for word 
the same in Mt. and Lk., but has no parallel in Mk. By ‘your 
sons’ is certainly not meant the disciples of Chvzs¢, who of 
course were the sons of Jewish parents, and had been com- 


1 This strange idea, however, was not peculiar to the Pharisees: Eusebius 
(Contra Hieroclem, xxx. 1, p. 530 A) says: δαίμονας yap ἀπελαύνει ἄλλῳ 
ἄλλον ἢ φασὶ δαίμονι. Healing the deaf and dumb seems to have inspired 
the multitude with special admiration for the Healer (Mk. vii. 37); DCG. i. 


Ρ. 427. 


XII. 27-29] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 177 


missioned by Christ to cast out demons. ‘Your sons’ may 
mean the disciples of the Pharisees, for great Rabbis sometimes 
called their pupils their ‘sons’ (Ecclus. vii. 3; Prov. i. 8, where 
see Toy’s note, p. 13). But more probably it is to be taken 
literally. See Acts xix. 13 and Jos. Af. vill. 11. 5 for instances 
of Jewish exorcisms, and comp. Tob. viii. 1-3. The argument 
is ad hominem. There were Jewish exorcists, and the Pharisees 
did not accuse them of employing diabolical agency. Why then 
did they accuse Christ of this? There is no need to raise the 
question whether the exorcists were successful: it is enough 
that they were allowed to work unmolested. This they could 
not deny, and thereby they would convict the Pharisees of 
prejudice and injustice, in bringing a charge against Christ 
which they did not bring against their own people. 

The charge of diabolical agency having been proved to be 
both absurd and unjust, the alternative of Divine agency is 
adopted (28) ; and here again there is no parallel in Mk., and 
Mt. and Lk. agree verbatim, except that for ‘by the Spirit of 
God’ Lk. has the Old Testament expression ‘by the finger of 
God.’ But if God is the cause of the marvellous healing of 
mind and body, then is the Kingdom of God come upon them. 
The Pharisees are in the same case as Chorazin and Bethsaida 
and Capernaum. The Kingdom of God is come near them, and 
yet they are far from the Kingdom of God.! Indeed they are 
worse than those impenitent cities, the inhabitants of which 
treated Christ’s mighty works with indifference. The Pharisees 
treat His miracles with something worse than indifference: they 
blasphemously attribute them to the evil one. See W. M. 
Alexander, Demonic Possession in the N.T. pp. 177-190. 

In the saying about spoiling the strong man of his goods, 
Mt., Mk., and Lk. differ considerably as regards the wording, 
Lk. being much more elaborate than the other two. The saying 
was probably proverbial. In Is. xlix. 24-26 the Chaldean asks, 
‘Shall prey be taken from a mighty one?’ and Jehovah replies, 
‘The captives of the strong one shall be taken away, for the 
stronger than he has come.’ This passage is apparently repro- 
duced in the Psalms of Solomon v. 4: “No man shall take prey 
from a mighty man,” unless he has first conquered him. The 
Messiah had taken prey from Satan by freeing demoniacs from 
his power; which is evidence that, so far from being the ally of 
Satan, He has begun to conquer him.? Perhaps there is here a 


1 This is one of the places in which Mt. has ‘ Kingdom of God’ instead of 
his usual ‘ Kingdom of the Heavens’ (xix. 24, xxi. 31, 43). The latter with 
him means the Kingdom which the Son of Man will come in the heavens to 
inaugurate, and that meaning would not be fitting here. 

2 With the almost superfluous ‘and then he will spoil his house’ comp. 
v. 24, vii. 5. Comp. also the Ascension of Isaiah, ix, 16, 


12 


178 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [Χ1]. 80, 81 


reference to the Temptation. ‘Get thee hence, Satan’ (iv. ro) 
was repeated every time that a demon was driven out; and 
every time that a demon was driven out the Kingdom of God 
was brought nearer. In reference to the sovereignty of God 
there are only two sides, for and against. By refusing to take 
part in the work of Christ for the promotion of that sovereignty 
the Pharisees had joined the forces of the enemy. They were 
not on God’s side; therefore they were against Him. It was 
not Jesus, but they, who had entered into alliance with Satan. 

‘This saying about the impossibility of neutrality (30) is 
worded exactly the same in Mt. and Lk., and has no parallel in 
Mk. ‘The ‘gathering’ and ‘scattering’ probably refer to a flock 
or followers rather than to fruit or seeds: comp. Jn. x. 12. This 
is the test which each man is to apply to Azmself: if he cannot 
see that he is on Christ’s side, he is against Him. The other 
saying about the impossibility of neutrality, ‘He that is not 
against us is for us’ (Mk. ix. 40; Lk. ix. 50), is the test by which 
to judge others ; if we cannot see that they are against Christ, we 
must give them credit for being on His side. Both Mk. and 
Lk. have both forms of the saying, 

Because the Pharisees had placed themselves on the side of 
Satan, Christ gives them a solemn warning: ‘Therefore I say to 
you’ (31). By accusing Him of being in league with Satan 
when He was acting in the power of the Holy Spirit, they had 
blasphemed the Holy Spirit, hardening their hearts against the 
Spirit’s influence. This is an unpardonable sin. “To identify 
the Source of good with the impersonation of evil implies a 
moral disease for which the Incarnation itself provides no 
remedy” (Swete). The repetition of this solemn warning in 

ver. 32 is given in a form which is not easy to explain.! That 
any sin may be forgiven, except blasphemy against the Spirit, is 
simple. ‘That speaking against the Son of Man may be forgiven, 
but speaking against the “Holy Spirit shall never be forgiven, is 
not simple. Let us take the first form (31) and apply it to the 
Pharisees. Freeing men from the dominion of evil spirits mst 
be good work ; it is the work of God’s Holy Spirit. The Pharisees 
had said that it was Satan’s work. This is blasphemy against 
the Spirit, and it will not be forgiven. ‘This is a terrible thought, 
but it is intelligible. In order to discredit beneficent work which 
told against their cherished prejudices, they had maliciously and 
deliberately attributed the Spirit’s action to Satan. This revealed 
a determined opposition to Divine influence which was hopeless. 
Now let us take the second form (32) and apply it in a similar 
way. How was it possible for the Pharisees to distinguish 


1 Lk. (xii, 10) gives only the more difficult form, and that in a different 
setting, 


XII. 81, 89] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 70 


between speaking against the Son of Man and speaking against 
the Holy Spirit? It was in speaking against the Son of Man 
that they had been proved guilty of speaking against the 
Spirit. 

It is worth considering whether Mt. xii. 32 and Lk. xii. τὸ 
are not less accurate reproductions of the saying which is given 
in Mk. iii. 28, 29 and Mt. xii. 31 ; and whether there is not some 
confusion between ‘the sons of men’ in Mk. iii. 28 and ‘the Son 
of Man’ in Mt. xii. 32 and Lk. xii. ro: see Allen’s note. But 
we must endeavour to explain ver. 32 as it stands. ‘The Son of 
Man’ means Christ in His life on earth, ministering to the 
physical and spiritual needs of mankind. In that Ministry there 
was much that was open to misconstruction. He, like other 
teachers and philanthropists, could be misunderstood and 
misjudged. There were gross misconceptions of His words and 
work, All this was deplorable, and by no means always 
innocent; but it was pardonable (Lk. xxiii. 34). Men could 
repent of their careless neglect of His work or their mistaken 
opposition to it, and they did repent, and were forgiven. But 
there is such a thing as opposition to Divine influence, so 
persistent and deliberate, because of constant preference of 
darkness to light, that repentance, and therefore forgiveness, 
becomes impossible. The efficacy of Divine grace remains 
undiminished, but the sinner has brought himself to such a 
condition that its operation on himself is excluded. Grace, like 
bodily food, may be rejected until the power to receive it is lost. 
Christ warns the Pharisees that they are perilously near to this 
condition. Against the dictates of reason and justice, they had 
deliberately treated as diabolical a work of the most surprising 
mercy and goodness.! ; 

But we must not infer from this that ‘speaking against the 
Holy Spirit’ is necessarily a sin of the tongue. Blasphemy, like 
lying, may be all the worse for being acted and not spoken. The 
sin of the Pharisees was not confined to the words ‘He cast 
out demons by Beelzebub’ or ‘ He has an unclean spirit.’ The 
mere utterance of an atrocious calumny, perhaps hastily, does 
not constitute an ‘eternal sin’ (Mk. iii. 29). It would be more 
in harmony with legalism than with the Spirit of Christ to attach 
terrific penalties to a single external act. It was the character 
revealed by the Pharisees’ calumny that was deserving of such 
condemnation. ‘Their disposition must be ‘ desperately wicked’ 


1 See on 1 Jn. v. 16in the Camb. Grk. Test., and Westcott on Heb. vi. 1-8, 
p. 165; DCG., art. ‘Blasphemy’; Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 255. So long 
as the Pharisees maintained their theory, their condition was beyond recovery. 
Sebald manifestation of Divine power and love could be explained away as 
Satanic, 


180 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ΣΙ]. 81, 32 


to make it possible for them to bring such a charge in order 
to explain such a deed as the liberation of a human being 
from the dominion of an evil power which rendered him blind 
and deaf and dumb. Moreover they had previously shown their 
evil disposition on various occasions. ‘They had witnessed some 
of His works of mercy and had heard of many more; and yet 
they persistently opposed and blamed Him. 

‘Neither in this age, nor in that which is to come’ is an 
emphatic periphrasis for ‘never.’ It is perhaps an enlargement 
by Mt. of Mk.’s οὐκ. . . εἰς τὸν αἰῶνα. The Jews divided time 
into two ages, the Messianic age and that which preceded it. 
Therefore what would take place in neither of these would never 
take place. Seeing that it is not certain that Christ used this 
precise phrase, it would be rash to draw inferences from the 
wording of it! Even if we could be sure that He spoke in the 
words of Mt. rather than in those of Mk., it would not follow 
that He meant more than that of this sin there is no forgiveness, 
because there is no repentance. We cannot safely argue that, 
because it is said that ¢4zs sin will not be forgiven in the age to 
come, therefore there are sins which zvz/7 be forgiven in the age 
to come. That may or may not be true, but it cannot be 
deduced from the form of expression used here. Yet we are free 
to hope that it is true that repentance may be reached and 
forgiveness won in the other world. Scripture affirms that ‘ zow 
is the acceptable time’; but it neither affirms nor denies that 
repentance and forgiveness may be found after death. “Two 
thoughts bearing on the future find clear expression in the New 
Testament. We read of an ‘eternal sin,’ of ‘a sin which has no 
forgiveness in this world nor in the world to come,’ of ‘the worm 
that dieth not and the fire that is not quenched.’ And on the 
other side we read of the good pleasure of God ‘to sum up all 
things in Christ,’ and ‘through Him to reconcile all things unto 
Himself.’ If we approach the subject from the side of man, we 
see that in themselves the consequences of actions appear to be 
for the doer like the deed indelible; and also that the finite 
freedom of the individual appears to include the possibility of 
final resistance to God. If we approach it from the Divine side, 
it seems to be an inadmissible limitation of the infinite love of 
God that a human will should ever refuse to yield to it in complete 
self-surrender when it is known as love. If we are called upon 
to decide which of these two thoughts of Scripture must be held 
to prevail, we can hardly doubt that that which is most compre- 
hensive, that which reaches farthest, contains the ruling idea ; 
and that is the idea of a final divine unity” (Westcott, Azstoric 
Faith, pp. 150, 151 ; comp. Salmon, Gnosticism and Agnosticism, 

1Dalman, Words of Jesus, p. 147; Gould, S. Mark, p. 196. 


XII. 33-37] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 181 


Ρ. 373; Langton Clarke, Zhe Eternal Saviour Judge, pp. 71-115 ; 
Agar Beet, Zhe Last Things, pp. 246-251). 

The paragraph which follows (33-37) is similar to one in the 
Sermon on the Mount (vii. 17-19), and the parallel verses in 
Lk. vi. 43-45 are closer to this paragraph than to vii. 17-19. The 
connexion here is that the character of Jesus may be known from 
His conduct.! He appeals to the general experience of mankind, 
How are distinctions between good and bad men made? By 
the kind of words and acts they produce. It is possible that Mt. 
has inserted the sayings in vv. 33-37 from some occasion of 
which the context had been lost; but the connexion just 
suggested is quite intelligible. The sayings fit this context. 
The Pharisees shrank from declaring that casting out demons 
and healing the dumb and blind were evil deeds; yet they 
declare that Christ did them by the power of the evil one, 
They must either treat both deeds and doer as good, or both 
deeds and doer as evil.2, On the other hand, the character of the 
Pharisees may be known by their conduct. Their venomous 
slanders were evidence of a corrupt heart, and theirs was so 
corrupt that it was morally impossible for them to utter good 
things. The Baptist had said much the same of them long 
before (iii. 7). Every man’s heart is a store-house, and his 
words show what he keeps there. Even lightly spoken words do 
that, and what is said on the spur of the moment is sometimes 
better evidence of a man’s disposition than what he says 
deliberately, for the latter may be calculated hypocrisy. But the 
Pharisees cannot escape on the plea that the charge of diabolical 
agency was made hastily without serious meaning. No good 
man would think of such a charge in connexion with such a 
miracle. And to say, “1 did not mean it,” does not free one 
from responsibility. Even for a purposeless* word we shall 
have to give account. ‘For it is out of thy sayings that thou 
shalt be justified (Ps. li. 6), and out of thy sayings that thou 
shalt be condemned.’ See Montefiore, pp. 625 f. 


1 There is a similar passage in the Testaments. It is the soul that takes 
pleasure in good that produces righteousness, and the soul that takes pleasure 
in evil that produces wickedness. All depends on the /reaswre of the inclina- 
tion (θησαυρὸς τοῦ διαβουλίου) ; Asher i. 6-9. 

2 This use of ποιεῖν is common in the writings of S. John: v. 18, viii. 53, 
x. 33; 1Jn.i. 10. The primary meaning of campés is ‘rotten,’ the secondary 
is ‘ worthless,’ which is the meaning here: a rotten tree would not bear any 
fruit. Comp. Lk. vi. 43; but Lk. has no parallel to vv. 34@, 36, 37. With 
36 comp. Eccles. xii. 14. 

8 Jerome’s verbum otiosum, which he explains as that which does no good 
to either speaker or hearer, is better than Cyprian’s verdbum vacuum for ῥῆμα 
ἀργόν. But Cyprian distinguishes between ῥῆμα, verbum, and λόγοι, sermones 
( Zest. iii. 13), while Jerome has verbum for both (Vulg.). English Versions 
do not distinguish, 


182 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [ XII. 38, 39 


We are perhaps to understand (38) that the Pharisees with- 
drew to deliberate about their reply to Christ’s warning and 
challenge, and that some of them returned with a challenge on 
their side. They speak in a formally respectful tone, but with 
an air of being fully justified in the demand which they make: 
“Master, we desire to see a sign from Thee.’ ‘Jews ask for 
signs’ (1 Cor. i. 22), says the Apostle, as if it were characteristic 
of the race; and it was a demand which was refused for the same 
reason that the request of Dives was refused (Lk. xvi. 29-31), 
because there were signs enough already. Those to whom 
Moses and the Prophets were insufficient would never be con- 
v nced by supernatural signs.! 

It may be thought surprising that Jesus does not refer the 
Pharisees, as He referred the Baptist (xi. 4, 5), to His own 
miracles. But it was His miracles of healing which they had 
questioned, as being the work of Beelzebub. Moreover, He 
had always declared that His teaching, without His mighty works, 
was sufficient evidence of His mission. It was never His way 
to violate men’s freedom by forcing them, against their wills, to 
believe on Him. He worked miracles for the good of mankind, 
and He was willing to use them as credentials of His authority. 
But this was a secondary use; primarily they were acts of 
beneficence. He wrought nothing that was a mere wonder, a 
mere exhibition of power; and this was what the Scribes and 
Pharisees wanted—His Name written in flaming letters across 
the sky. They detested His teaching as revolutionary, and they 
refused to accept His acts of healing as wrought by Divine 
agency. Yet some of them, no doubt, had misgivings, and all 
of them wished to justify themselves with the multitude. They 
ask to be miraculously convinced, and this He refuses. He calls 
those who make such a demand ‘an evil and adulterous genera- 
tion,’ where ‘adulterous’ (μοιχαλίς, which is not in Lk. xi. 29) 
means that they have. been faithless to the marriage-tie which 
binds them to Jehovah. ‘Faithless Judah hath not returned to 
Me with her whole heart, but feignedly, saith the Lord’ (Jer. ΠΙ. 
10). ‘The same idea appears in Hos. vii. 13-16. The formalists 
who rejected Christ had abandoned idolatry, but they had been 
faithless to Jehovah in other ways that were more deadly because 


1 It is evident that the Pharisees were not asking for such signs as Jeremiah 
was told to employ, the marred linen girdle, the marred potter’s vessel, and 
the like. They desired such miracles as Moses, Elijah, and Elisha had 
wrought, or something still more stupendous. // n’y a pas de limite aux 
exigences des sceptigues en fait de surnatural (Girodon, S. Luc, p. 327). 

The mention of the Pharisees here by Mt. again shows his aversion: they 
are not named in this connexion by Lk. See notes on Mt. iii. 7, xxvil. 62. 
The phrase γενεὰ μοιχαλίς occurs again xvi. 4. Comp. Mk. viii. 38, where 
Mt. (xvi. 27) omits it. See Knowling on Jas. iv. 4. 


at 


XII. 40, 41] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 183 


more subtle. A little later Josephus says that “‘no age did ever 
breed a generation more fruitful in wickedness than this was, from 
the beginning of the world” (2B. Δ v. x. 5, xili. 6; VII. vill. 1). 


There is no doubt that ver. 40 is part of the original text of this Gospel ; 
it is absent from no MS. or version. But there is good reason for believing 
that it was no part of Christ’s reply on this occasion. 1. It is not in Lk. xi. 
29-32. 2. Itdoes not fit the context, which speaks of preaching producing 
repentance and is in no way concerned with the Resurrection. 3. It would 
not be intelligible to Christ’s hearers, who knew nothing of His future Resur- 
rection. 4. The parallel drawn between Jonah and Christ is nottrue. Jesus 
was in the grave one whole day and part of two others ; 7.e. He rose on the 
next day but one after His death, and this is expressed in Greek, in both 
sacred and profane writers, by ‘on the third day’ (τῇ τρίτῃ, with or without 
ἡμέρᾳ). Comp. xvi. 21, xx. 19. The less accurate expression, ‘ after three 
days’ (μετὰ τρεῖς ἡμέρας) means the same thing (Mk. viii. 31, x. 34). In 
Gen. xlii. 17, 18, Joseph put his brethren ‘into ward three days. And 
Joseph said unto them the third day.’ But the facts will not justify the 
statement that Christ’s body was ‘three days and ¢hree nights’ in the grave. 
Comp. Lk. xiii. 32; Acts xxvii. 18, 19; Exod. xix. 10, 11; passages which 
make it quite clear that ‘on the third day’ means ‘on the next day but one,’ 
and not ‘on the next day but two.’ See Field, Otium Norvic. iii. Ὁ. 8. 
The saying is repeated without explanation xvi. 4, and probably our Lord 
gave no explanation here. 

The verse may be a gloss which has got into the authority which Mt. 
used ; or it may be an insertion made by Mt. himself on the supposition that 
Christ’s mention of Jonah referred to him as a type of the Resurrection. The 
latter is more probable, and in that case we have a parallel to i. 22, 23, 
where Mt.’s reflexion about the fulfilment of prophecy is given as part of the 
message of the Angel. Justin Martyr (77y. 107) says that Jonah was ‘‘ cast 
up from the belly of the fish ογ the third day” (τῇ τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ), thereby 
making the correspondence exact. See Sanday, Bampton Lectures, 1893, p. 
432; Salmon, Zhe Human Element, p. 217; DCG. ii. p. 269; Moulton, 
Modern Reader’s Bible, p. 1696; Allen on Mt. xii. 40. 


Our Lord’s mention of Jonah as preaching to the Ninevites 
does not require us to believe that the story of Jonah is history. 
In His own parables He made use of fiction for instruction. 
Why should He not use an O.T. parable for the same purpose ? 
If He were on earth now, might He not quote Dante? If our 
Lord had said, ‘As the rich man killed the poor man’s ewe- 
lamb, so ye rob the fatherless and the widow,’ would that have 
proved that Nathan’s parable was literally true? 5, Paul’s 
mention of Jannes and Jambres (2 Tim. iii. 8), and S. Jude’s 
mention of Michael’s dispute with Satan for the body of Moses, 
are similar cases. See Briggs, Zhe Afessiah of the Gospels, p. 189 
note; Gore, Bampton Lectures, 1891, pp. 195-200; Sanday, 
Bampton Lectures, pp. 414-419; with the literature there quoted. 

If we regard the saying about the three days and three nights 
as part of our Lord’s reply to the demand for a sign, the meaning 
will be that the only sign which will be given is the sign of His 
Resurrection. When they have carried into effect their plans to 


184 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [ΧὩ]. 41-43 


destroy Him (14), God will deliver Him from the grave as He 
delivered Jonah from the belly of the sea-monster, and that sign 
may possibly convince them. If not, they will be more im- 
penitent than the Ninevites. But here the reference to Jonah’s 
deliverance from the fish seems to be superfluous. The argument 
runs smoothly when the preaching of Jonah is compared with 
the preaching of Christ, and the penitence of the Ninevites 
is contrasted with the impenitence of the unbelieving Jews. 
But, in order to bring in Jonah’s miraculous deliverance, we 
must assume that he told the Ninevites of this (as to which 
nothing is said in the O.T.), and that it was this wonderful sign, 
rather than the threat of Divine judgment, which converted 
them. 

With improved chronology, and also with better rhetorical 
effect, Lk. places the case of the Ninevites after that of the 
Queen of the South.! In the day of judgment both she and the 
Ninevites will be able to condemn the unbelieving Jews, for they 
made a much better use of smaller opportunities than the Jews 
did of greater ones. What was Solomon as a teacher of wisdom, 
and what was Jonah as a denouncer of wickedness, compared 
with Him whose wisdom and warnings were alike rejected by 
those who said that He was in league with the evil one? What 
painful egotism there is in these sayings if He who uttered them 
was merely a human teacher! And yet, with what quiet serenity, 
as being beyond question, they are uttered !? 

The parable about the demoniac who is cured and then 
allows himself to be repossessed by demons (43-45) is placed by 
Lk. (xi. 24-26) immediately after the saying that he who is not 
with Christ is against Him. Such a demoniac illustrates the 
impossibility of being neutral. He flees from the evil one 
without seeking Christ, and thus falls more hopelessly into the 
power of the evil one again. Here the parable illustrates the 
condition of the Jewish nation, which had gone through a 
temporary repentance, and then had fallen into far worse sins 
than before. The worship of idols had been given up, but had 
been followed by a worship of the letter, which had been fatal to 
the spirit of religion. The temporary repentance may refer to 
this abandonment of idolatry, or possibly to the religious excite- 
ment produced by the preaching of the Baptist. That revival 
had in many cases been very superficial; few of those who 
experienced it had become followers of the Messiah, and 

1 This is the earliest example of ‘Jemen’= ‘South’ being used for South- 
West Arabia. 

2 «¢ He declares Himself possessed of virtues which, if a man said he had 
them, it would be the best proof that he did not possess them and did not 
know himself. It is either the most insane arrogance of self-assertion, or it is 
sober truth” (Maclaren). 


PIERS < 


XII. 44, 45] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 185 


they who had not done so would end in putting Him to 
death.! 3 

The ‘waterless places’ mean the wilderness, in which evil 
spirits are supposed to dwell. Azazel lives in the wilderness 
(Lev. xvi. 10). Comp. Bar. iv. 35; the Septuagint of Is. xiii. 
21; the Vulgate of Tob. viii. 3; Rev. xviii. 2. Allen quotes a 
remarkable incantation illustrating the same thought. The 
demon is exorcised with the words: “O evil spirit—to the 
desert. O evil demon—to the desert, etc.” But this does not 
seem to be a case of exorcism; the demon says: ‘I will return 
to my house whence I came out.’ He does not say: ‘whence I 
was driven out,’ and he still calls it ‘my house,’ for no one else 
has taken it. God has not been asked to occupy it. It is 
‘standing idle’ (cxoAd{ovra)—placed first as the chief error.? It 
is ‘swept, and garnished’—with sham virtues and hypocritical 
graces, the “ darling sins ” of the evil one, and therefore likely to 
attract any of his ministers. It is garnished, as whited sepulchres 
are garnished ; but it is not guarded by the presence of God’s 
Holy Spirit, and hence the fatal result. The former demon 
returns with seven others worse than himself, and ‘they enter in 
and settle there (κατοικεῖ ἐκεῖ), making it their permanent abode’ 
(xxiii. 21).8 ‘So shall it be also to this evil generation.’ They 
have not reached this desperate condition yet, but they are in 
danger of it, and some of them will reach it. The warning is 
similar to that about blasphemy against the Holy Spirit, which 
He does not say that they have committed, although they are 
near it. ‘Worse than the first’ is a proverbial expression (xxvii. 
G43 comp. 2 Pet. 20; Heb. x. 20; Jn: v. 14) 5 ‘but. the 
Speaker does not, like the writer to the Hebrews (x. 26), include 
Himself as possibly within its sweep. 

The visit of Christ’s Mother and brethren (46-50) is by Mt. 
expressly connected with the previous utterance: ‘While He was 
still speaking to the multitudes.’ Neither Mk. (iii. 31) nor Lk. 
(viii. 19) give any note of time; comp. ix. 18: also xvii. 5, 
where Lk. agrees with Mt., and xxvi. 47, where all three agree. 
In Mt. and Lk. ‘without’ (ἔξω) means outside the crowd: in 

1 In ΜΚ. ix. 25 Christ commands a demon to come out from a man and 
enter no more into him, which seems to imply that the return sometimes took 
place. Here διέρχεται perhaps means ‘ wanders about’; comp. Acts viii. 4, 
40, x. 38, xx. 25; 2 Chron. xvii. 9. See also the enlargement in the LXX. 
of Prov. xxviii. 10. 

} Rive oe isno σχολάζοντα in Lk. ; and Mt. may have added it to make a 
triplet. “ 

Ps With the seven demons here comp. the seven cast out of Mary Magdalen 
(‘Mk.’ xvi. 9) and the ‘seven spirits of seduction’ (ἑπτὰ πνεύματα τῆς 
πλάνηΞ) in the Testaments (Aeuden il. 1, 2), and what is said of the man that 


refuses todo good : ὁ διάβολος οἰκειοῦται αὐτὸν ὡς ἴδιον σκεῦος, * dwells in him, 
as his own peculiar vessel” (adhta/i viii. 6). 


186 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [Χ1]. 46-50 


Mk. it seems to mean outside the house (ili. 19). On the 
‘Brethren of the Lord’ see on i. 25 and the literature there 
quoted ; to which add Lightfoot, Galatians, pp. 253-291; 
Encyclopedia Biblica, artt. ‘Clopas’ and ‘James’; J. B. Mayor, - 
Expositor, July and August 1908 (a thorough reinvestigation of 
the question). There is nothing in Scripture to forbid the 
antecedently natural view that these ‘brethren’ are the children 
of Joseph and Mary, born after the birth of Jesus, and (apart 
from prejudgments as to what seems to be fitting) i. 25 may be 
regarded as decisive. 

Our Lord’s reply here is not a censure on His relatives for 
seeking Him, nor does He deny the claim of family ties. He 
uses their appeal as an opportunity for pointing out that there 
are ties which are far stronger and claims that are far higher 
(x. 35, xix. 29). The closest blood-relationship to the Messiah 
does not, any more than descent from Abraham, constitute 
any right to admission to the Kingdom, and human parentage 
does not make any one a child of God (Jn. i. 13). It is 
spiritual conditions which avail. But Christ does not say that 
any disciple, however loyal, is His father. In the spiritual 
sphere His Father is God. Mt. alone specially mentions that 
it was the disciples who were pointed out by Christ as His 
nearest relations, and he alone inserts ‘which is in heaven’ 
after ‘My Father.’ The mention of ‘sister’ (Mt., Mk.) with 
‘brother’ and ‘mother’ (50) is no proof that His sisters were 
present on this occasion, although many authorities insert ‘and 
Thy sisters’ in Mk. iii. 32. It is possible that Mt. regarded 
the incident as a fit conclusion to this section, which treats of 
misunderstanding of the Messiah’s teaching and opposition to 
His work. His devotion to His mission involved separation 
from even His Mother and His brethren. Of the latter we 
know that they did not believe on Him (Jn. vii. 5), a fact 
which is conclusive against any of them having been among 
the Twelve Apostles. 


The whole of ver. 47 is probably an interpolation from Mk. and Lk. It 
is wanting in our best and oldest authorities (δὲ B LT’, Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. and 
some Old Latin texts). Mt. has rendered the statement unnecessary by 
‘seeking to speak to Him’ in ver. 46; and he much more often reduces the 
redundant statements of Mk. than enlarges what Mk. gives. With vv. 48-50 
comp. Hom. //. vi. 429: Ἕκτορ, ἀτὰρ σύ pol ἐσσι πατὴρ καὶ πότνια μήτηρ 
᾿Ηδὲ κασίγνητος. ‘‘ The silence of the Synoptists respecting her (the Mother 
of our Lord) throughout His ministry is astounding, and it is continued in 
Acts, where she is named (i. 14) and then disappears from history. Nor do 
the epistles give any information” (Wright, Syzopszs, p. 35). 

Characteristic expressions in ch. xii. : τότε (13, 22, 38, 44), μεταβαίνειν 
(9), πορεύεσθαι (1), Kai ἰδού (10), ὅπως πληρώθῃ (17), προσφερειν (22), γεννή- 
ματα ἐχιδνῶν (34), θησαυρός (35), ἡμέρα κρίσεως (36), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς 
(50). None of these occur in the parallel passages. Peculiar: ἐν ἐκείνῳ 


-- 


Ι 
Ι 


XIII. 1-9] © THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 187 


τῷ καίρῳ (1), συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν (14), τὸ ῥηθέν (17). None of the follow- 
ing are found elsewhere in the N.T.: ἀναίτιος (5, 7), alperifew (18), ἐρίζειν 
(19), τύφειν (20). 

The insertion ‘of the heart’ (τῆς καρδίας) after ‘the good treasure’ (L, 
Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. some Old Latin texts, Arm. Aeth.) is followed in AV. 
but abandoned in RV. It comes from Lk. vi. 45, where it is genuine, 


XIII 1-52. LZlustrations of the Messiah’s Use of 
Parables. 


‘On that day’ and ‘went out of the house’ (1) are additions 
made by Mt. to the narrative of Mk., and the reason for them 
is not obvious: no house has been mentioned. As regards the 
rest he follows Mk.; but he omits ‘in the sea’ after ‘sat,’ 
probably because he saw that it was ambiguous. In xxii. 23 
there is a similar insertion of ‘on that day.’ - 
_—The central idea of the parable of the Sower (3-8) is that, 
the seed being uniformly good, the difference of crop depends 
upon the character of the soil which receives the seed. Soil 
may be bad in a variety of ways, and there may be various 
degrees of goodness in the crop. Lk. is much more brief than 
“Mt. or Mk. in describing the seed on the rocky ground, and 
he gives only the hundredfold crop. Mk. alone has the intro- 
ductory ‘ Hearken’: all three have the concluding ‘let him hear’ ; 
comp. xi. 15, xiii. 43. As it is the same Greek verb in both 
places, we desiderate the same English verb in both: but ‘ He that 
hath ears to hear, let him hear’ is too familiar now to be changed. 

We have had various parables already in the examples of 
Christ’s teaching which have thus far been recorded; the salt 
and the light (v. 13-16), the fowls and the lilies (vi. 26-30), 
the two gates (vii. 13, 14), the wise and the foolish builders 
(vii. 24-27), the garments and the wine-skins (ix. 16, 17), the _ 
children in the market-places (xi. 16, 17); but they have been_ | 
short and incidental. Henceforward-they-become more elaborate, 
and they form a large proportion of Christ’s teaching. This 
was probably caused by the decreasing.enthusiasm in many of 
Christ’s followers and the increasing animosity of His opponents. 
Parables would instruct disciples whose minds were still in 
harmony with the Teacher and yet would give little opening 
to His enemies. Parables, while they revealed the truth to 
those who could profit by it, concealed the mysteries of the, 
Kingdom from the unworthy, who could not understand them, 
or would be injured by them if they did understand.’ This 


1 Tt is rash to say that Christ neither did nor could adopt a policy of con- 
cealment, and that the Evangelists have confounded intention with result, 
and have thus imputed an ‘‘ inhuman purpose” to Christ. The quotation in 
ver. 13 is in all four Gospels (Mk. iv. 12; Lk, viii. 10; Jn. xii. 40). 


188 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XIII. 3-10 


y/concealment of the truth was a judgment on the unworthy, but 

“ a judgment full of mercy. They were saved from the guilt of 
rejecting the truth, for they were not allowed to recognize it. 
And they were also saved from profaning it, for by parabolic 
teaching Christ carried out His own maxim of not casting 
pearls before swine (vii. 6). And the parable was a mercy to 
the unworthy in yet another way. A parable not only arrests 
attention at the time, it impresses the memory; and, if the 
hearer’s heart afterwards becomes receptive, he understands 
the lesson which he missed when he heard. Christ’s parables 
were taken from familiar objects, and His hearers, when they 
saw the objects afterwards, would be reminded of His words. 
And although they were primarily intended for Jews of Palestine 

- in His own time—a fact which must be borne in mind in 
interpreting them, yet there is little that is specially Jewish or 
Palestinian in them. Only one or two have Jewish features, 
and hardly one has anything which is decidedly Palestinian 
(Stanley, Sz. and Pal. p. 432). ‘They were intended for the 
Jew first, but also for the Gentile ; and all sorts and conditions of 
men of all races and generations have been instructed by them. 

The parable of the Sower is a_leading and testing, parable 
(Mk. iv. 13). It is one of the three (all dealing with vegetation) 
which are in all three Gospels, the other two being the Mustard- 
seed and the Wicked Husbandmen.! And it is one of which 
we have Christ’s own interpretation. In that interpretation it 
is specially remarkable that the ‘birds,’ which we should 
probably have explained as impersonal temptations, are ex- 
pressly, in spite of the plural number, said to mean ‘Satan’ 
(Mk.), ‘the evil one’ (Mt.), ‘the devil’ (Lk.). Among the 
things which choke the word Mk. alone mentions ‘the lusts of 
other things,’ and Lk. alone has ‘pleasures of this life.’ Mt. by 
having neither spoils a triplet, which is unusual with him. 

The disciples’ question is given differently by the Evan- 
gelists. Mk. says that they ‘asked Him the parables.’ Lk. 
understands this as signifying that they asked the meaning 
of this particular parable. Mt. gives it the much wider significa- 
tion of a question as to the purpose of parables generally.? 


1 In this chapter we have two of these, together with a third on a similar 
subject, viz. the Tares. Mackinlay thinks that these repeated references to 
sowing were made at the time of the first sowing after the year of Sabbath, 
which he dates A.D. 26-27. ‘Upon the thorns,’ ἐπὶ τὰς ἀκάνθας (7) means 
upon places where the roots of these plants were concealed. In ver. 8 note 
the change from aorist to imperfect. 

2 This involves a change in Christ’s reply from ἵνα μή to ὅτι ob. Christ 
could not be said to aim at preventing all His hearers from understanding. 
Mt. inserts ver. 12 before the explanation of the parable: both Mk. (iv. 25) 
and Lk, (viii. 18) place it after the explanation. 


XIII. 14] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 189 


| Christ replies that the purpose is educational to disciples, and 

\disciplinary to those who refuse to become disciples. Instruc- 
tion is given in a form which the unreceptive, through their 
own fault, cannot understand. It is easy to see how this 
illustrates the law that to him that hath more shall be given; 
the hearer that has sympathy with the truth is instructed, It 
js Iess easy to see how he that hath not loses even that which 
he hath, or thinketh he hath (Lk. viii. 18). Perhaps the 
meaning is that_the unworthy hearers..become_less_and_less 
able to receive the truth, the more often they listen to parables ~ 
without understanding them. | For ‘understanding’ in Scripture 
is a matter of the heart rather than of the head, and the organ 

‘\which is never used at last loses its power; the ears that never 
vhear become deaf. Comp. xxv. 29 and Lk. xix. 26. The quota- 
fon from Is. vi. 9, 10, which Mk. gives in an indirect form 
(iv. x2), is given by Mt. in the words of the Septuagint directly. 
And the way in which Mt. introduces the quotation (14) is 
remarkable. He does not use the phrases, ‘that it might be 
fulfilled’ (ἵνα or ὅπως πληρωθῇ), or ‘then was fulfilled’ (τότε 
ἐπληρώθη), which he usually employs when he himself points 
out that something is a fulfilment of prophecy. Here it is 
Christ who points out the fulfilment, and Mt. reports Him as 
doing so with the very unusual formula, ‘there is being filled 
up to them’ (ἀναπληροῦται αὐτοῖς), 2.6. in their case the prophecy 
is being fully satisfied. 

It is also to be remarked that this is one of the passages 
in which Mt. omits what is unfavourable to the disciples. Mk. 
iv. 13 has: ‘Know ye not this parable? and how shall ye know 
all the parables?’ For this rebuke Mt. substitutes, ‘Do you, 
therefore, hear the parable of the sower.’ Comp. xiv. 33 with 
Mk. vi. 52; xvi. 9 with Mk. viii. 17; xvii. 23 with Mk. ix. 32; 
and see Allen, pp. xxxiiif. Both here and elsewhere Lk. 
exhibits a similar tenderness for the Twelve. It is in harmony 
with this feeling that Mt. and Lk. give the special Beatitude of 
the disciples, ‘ Blessed are your eyes,’ etc. which Mk. omits. Lk. 
has this Beatitude after the return of the Seventy (x. 23, 24) 
and words it differently. And his arrangement is to be pre- 
ferred, if the Beatitude was uttered only once; but it may have 
been spoken both to the Twelve and to the Seventy. Prophets, 
such as Balaam, Moses, Isaiah, Micah, and righteous men, such 
as the Psalmists, had desired to ste what the Twelve had seen. 


1The compound ἀναπληρόω is found nowhere else in the Gospels, and 
it is used nowhere else in the Bible of the fulfilment of prophecy. Here it 
seems to imply that there has been partial fulfilment in the past, and that 
this is now made complete. The word μυστήριον also, frequent in the Pauline 
Epistles, occurs nowhere in the Gospels, excepting ver. 11= Mk, iv. 11=Lk. 
villi. 10. In the LXX. it is frequent in Daniel and the Apocrypha, 


190 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIII. 18 


In the Psalms of Solomon we have similar utterances: ‘“ Blessed 
are they that shall be born in those days, to behold the blessing 
of Israel” (xvii. 50; comp. xviii. 7). Here there is a strong 
emphasis on the pronoun: ‘Blessed are your eyes.’ But this 
blessing will be realized, only if they understand what they see 
and hear. Christ therefore explains the parable to them, and 
once more there is great emphasis on the pronoun, ‘Do you, 
therefore, hear the parable of the sower.’ Beware of indifference, 
of shallowness, and of worldliness, which is trying to serve God. 
and mammon. It is the good and single heart that understands 
and bears fruit. 

This interpretation of the parable has been criticized as being 
allegorical and going too much into detail, so that the main 
lesson is lost. If this were true, we should have to assign the 
interpretation to the Evangelists, who have put their ideas into 
Christ’s mouth. But it is not true. The interpretation is 
beautiful in its simplicity, although part answers to part, and 
not merely whole to whole. There is apparent confusion of 
language, because of the double meaning of ‘sown’: the seed 
may be said to be ‘sown’ and the ground may be said to be 
‘sown,’ and in the interpretation these two meanings are mixed. 
But this apparent confusion may be due to the Evangelists, and 
it causes no difficulty. The interpretation remains perfectly 
clear, that though Christ is the Sower, and_ sows the word of 
truth, yet the result depends upon the character of the soil. 

It by no means follows that because every parable has one 
main lesson, therefore’ no parable has more than one lesson. 
The interpretations which have been given of the parables of 
the Sower and of the Tares indicate that it is lawful to seek a 
meaning for some of the details. In the Sower, nearly every- 
thing is interpreted; in the Tares, some things are interpreted 
(the sower, the good seed, the enemy, the tares, the field, the 
harvest, and the reapers), and some are not (the people’s 
sleeping, the enemy’s going away, the servants of the house- 
holder, and the binding of the bundles). It requires much 
judgment to decide whether any of the details of a parable are 
significant, and, if so, which. Very early in the history of the 
Church imagination began to run riot in this respect, for 
Tertullian protests against it. In the parable of the Lost Coin 
are we to find a meaning for the number ten, for the lamp, for 
the broom? ‘Curious niceties of this kind not only render 
some things suspected, but by the subtlety of forced explanations 
generally lead away from the truth” (De /udic. ix.). And 
Chrysostom goes the length of saying that when we have found 
out the main lesson, we need not trouble ourselves further (2 
Mt. Hom. \xiv. 3). That is too narrow a view. But the 


XIII. 18] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 19! 


endless difficulties about the Unrighteous Steward are the result 
of making the details mean something. The aptitude of details 
for allegorical interpretation is no proof that these meanings 
were intended by Christ. See Trench, Pavadles, ch. iil. ; Sanday, 
Outlines, pp. 68-74; Hastings’ DZ., art. ‘ Parable.’ 

Nor is it any objection to the value of a parable that it 
teaches only one lesson, or only a very few, while it leaves 
important questions connected with the main subject untouched. 
No parable could be equal to the complexity of human life or 
of religious problems. In the Sower, neither in the parable, 
nor in the interpretation, is anything said as to the causes of the 
differences between the classes of hearers. What made some 
to be indifferent, others shallow, others worldly, and others again 
receptive in varying degrees? We are told elsewhere that there 
are whole and there are sick (ix. 12), that some will receive the 
Messiah’s messengers and some not (x. 11-13), that there are 
those who are too wise to be childlike, and those who are 
childlike without being wise (xi. 25), and that some trees are 
good, while others are worthless (xii. 33); but in all these places 
the hearers are supposed to know from the experience of their 
own hearts how these momentous differences arise. Their 
business is to see to which class they themselves belong, and 
to act accordingly. We should perhaps see this more clearly if 
we called this searching story, not the parable of the Sower, but 
the parable of the Soils; and we have to see to it that the soil 
of our own hearts is soft, and deep, and clean. 

There is yet another point on which the parable gives us 
no information,—the proportion between the different kinds of 
soils, and especially between the good and the bad soils. Is 
indifference more often fatal than shallowness or worldliness ? 
Is thirtyfold more common than a hundredfold? Is bad soil 
more common than good, so that most of the Sower’s seed is 
wasted? Are those who are in the way of salvation many or 
few? The answer to these questions is the same as before. 
To which class-do you belong? Strain every nerve to belong 
to the best (Lk. xiii. 23, 24); and this will be all the more 
imperative, if you find that you are producing, not thirtyfold 
instead of sixty or a hundred, but nothing at all; if you find 
that you are not for Christ, and therefore against Him. It is 
your business to strive to enter the Kingdom, and to help others | 
to enter; how many succeed and how many fail—‘ what is that ‘ 
to thee?’ 

Mt. omits the parable of the Seed growing secretly] 
(Mk. iv. 26-29) and substitutes that of the Tares. The\ 


1 Comp. Jer. iv. 3: ‘Break up your fallow ground, and sow not upon 
thorns,’ μὴ σπείρητε ἐπ᾽ ἀκάνθαις. ἣ 


192 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ XIII. 24-30 


Evangelist’s reasons for arranging the six parables which follow 
the Sower as he does are not clear; for a possible explanation 
see Allen. The arrangement itself is clear enough. Four 
parables were spoken from the boat to a mixed multitude on 
the shore, and then, in the house, Christ explained the Tares 
to the disciples and delivered three more parables. The 
explanation of the Sower was not given at once, although it is 
placed immediately after the parable. The explanation of the 
Tares was not given at once, and it is πο placed immediately 
after the parable. In the one case Mt. has followed Mk.’s 
order, in the other he cannot do so, for Mk. omits the Tares. 
Mt. either follows the order of the source from which he got 
these parables, or he adopts an order of his own. Mt. may 
have placed the Tares next to the Sower because of the 
similarity of subject; but it is quite as possible that this 
similarity led to the two parables being spoken at the same 
time. The one treats of different soils producing from the 
same seed crops varying from zero to a hundredfold ; the other 
treats of the same soil producing a mixed crop from mixed seed. 
But both are addressed to the multitudes; not one to the laity 
and the other to the clergy, not one to subjects and the other 
to rulers. 

The traditional rendering ‘tares’ for ζιζάνια is unfortunate, 
but cannot be changed. ‘Tares’ in the parabolic sense has 
become a household word in English literature. But the plant 
in the parable is not the common vetch, which has no 
resemblance to wheat, and is useful enough in its way, but the 
bearded darnel (/oium ¢emulentum), which in its earlier stages 
is indistinguishable from wheat, and which often breeds a 
poisonous fungus. Modern farming in the East has improved 
upon the methods mentioned in the parable. After the ears 
are developed, but before the harvest, the darnel and other 
tall weeds are pulled up and destroyed, so that at the harvest 
the crop is quite clean. Both in Palestine and in Cheshire the 
peasants believe that darnel is degenerated wheat, and that in 
bad seasons wheat will turn into darnel; the truth being that 
much wet rots the wheat and stimulates the darnel. It is said 
that in France the malicious sowing of fields with weeds is not 
unknown. See Groser, Scripture Natural History; Henslow, 
The Plants of the Bible; Tristram, Matural History of the Bible; 
Shakespeare, Azng Lear, Act. iv. sc. 4.1 

In the Tares, as in the preceding parable, the Sower is 
clearly indicated, and in both cases the seed is good. But in 


1 Tn likening the Kingdom to various things, three expressions are used : 
-͵ὁμοιώθη (xiii. 24, Xvili. 23, xxii. 2), ὁμοιωθήσεται (xxv. I), and ὁμοία 
ἐστίν (xili, 31, 33, 44, 45; 47). 


XIII. 24-31] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 193 


the Tares the soil is all good, and the crop would be all good, 
but for the malice of the enemy, ‘while men slept.’ The 
sleeping is not blamed; after honest toil it was right that they 
should sleep; but it was then that the enemy had his 
opportunity. It would have been easy to represent the weeds 
as sown by the wind; but just as in the Sower our Lord makes 
the birds represent, not impersonal temptations, but Satan, so 
here He makes the noxious plants to be sown by a personal 
evil agent, who scatters false apostles and false doctrine broad- 
cast through God’s world. The field is the world (38), not the 
Church, which gives too narrow a meaning to the parable, and 
leaves out of account the multitudes of good and bad who are 
not Christians. And, once more, men are divided into just two 
classes, tares and wheat, sons of the Kingdom and sons of the 
evil one. He that is not with Christ is against Him. Christ 
gives no explanation of the servants who propose to weed out 
the tares, and we need not seek one. ‘There are always persons 
who are ready to propose drastic remedies for real or supposed 
evils, and it is with regard to them that the main lesson of the 
parable is given. Men are not to anticipate the judgment of ᾿ 
God, for they will do much more harm than good by attempting 
to do so. They have not sufficient knowledge. They do not 
always know how to distinguish the bad from the good, nor do 
they know how the removal of the bad may affect the good. 
A plant that will turn out very well may easily be mistaken for 
a weed ; and the lives of good and bad are often so closely 
intertwined that the violent removal of the one is sure to cause 
injury to the other. That the bad may become good is not 
taught by the parable, but it is provided for in the absolute 
prohibition to root up any. It is not for man to call down fire 
from heaven upon those whom he regards as the enemies of 
Christ. 

The parable may have a reference to the teaching of the 
Baptist and his message to Christ. In his preaching he had 
laid his chief emphasis upon the judgments that await the 
impenitent,—the axe, the winnowing fan, and the unquenchable 
fire. He had said little about the Messiah’s mercy and love. 
He had been impatient with Jesus for not being sufficiently 
prompt in carrying out John’s conception of His mission. The 
Messiah here repeats the lesson: ‘Judgment is Mine,’ not man’s, 
And, though the Divine judgment never fails, yet it does tarry ; 
and it is the Divine patience that man must strive to imitate. 
Man is shortlived and is often hasty. He who is from ever- 
lasting to everlasting can afford to wait. 

Both Mt. and Mk. group together three parables that are 
taken from the vegetable world, the first and the third being the 


13 


194 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XIITI. 81-35 


same in each,—the Sower and the Mustard-seed. Both Mt. and 
Lk. group together two parables respecting the spread of the 
Gospel,—the Mustard-seed and the Leaven; but Lk. places 
this pair later in the Ministry, just after the healing of a woman 
in a synagogue on the sabbath (xii. 18-21). In this pair Christ 
points out some of the characteristics of the Kingdom which 
He so often mentioned in His teaching, its small beginning, its 
gradual increase, and its immense development. It will embrace 
all peoples and nations, and it will penetrate and transform 
their entire life (31-33). 

It is not quite certain what plant is meant by the mustard, 
but sézapis nigra is probable. It is some plant which grows to 
a large size from a very small seed (xvii. 20); but ‘tree’ (δένδρον) 
does not necessarily mean a timber-tree. We speak of a rose- 
tree and a gooseberry-tree. Whether any other characteristics 
of the mustard-plant are alluded to, such as its medicinal qualities, 
is doubtful. “Small as a mustard seed” was a Jewish proverb 
to indicate a very minute particle: and “so that the birds of the 
heaven can lodge in it” was a phrase for a great Kingdom giving 
protection to many (Dan. iv. 9, 18; Ezek. xxxi. 6). 

Leaven (33) is commonly used as a metaphor for evil influ- 
ence, which disturbs, puffs up, sours, and corrupts. “1 is born 
of corruption” says Plutarch, γέγονεν ex φθορᾶς : and leaven was 
forbidden during the Passover. Comp. 1 Cor. v. 6; Gal. v. 9. 
But our Lord is not deterred by these associations from using 
it to symbolize the sure and subtle influence of the Gospel. 
Comp. Ignatius, AZagnes. x. ‘There was a common expectation 
that the Messianic Kingdom would come ‘with observation,’ 
suddenly, with much show of power and glory. These two 
parables teach a different lesson. The tiny seed was buried in 
the earth ; the leaven was hidden in the meal. The beginnings 
of the Kingdom were unnoticed, and the ignorance of its character 
was worldwide. But, whether noticed or not, the plant grew, 
and the leaven conquered the meal. 

How does it conquer the meal? By the influence of the 
small piece of leaven upon the particles nearest to it, and of 
those particles upon others that are nearest to them, ‘till it is 
all leavened.’ That Kingdom in which the will of God is 
acknowledged until it becomes supreme is to spread from soul 
to soul until all are brought within His sovereignty. It spreads 
from Christ to the Twelve, and from the Twelve to the infant 
Church, and so on until the whole mass is reached and trans- 
formed. Each Christian soul is to be a missionary, passing on 
the subtle influence to others, for he must not receive and refuse 
to give. This implies that the Christian must live in the world, 
for the leaven cannot work without contact. Human life must 


XIII. 33-39] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 195 


be touched at all points, in order that its work and its play, its 
religion and its relaxation, its politics and its commerce, its 
science and its arts, may be raised and warmed by the penetrating 
action of Christian morality and Christian ideals. He is no true 
Christian who either shuns society for fear of contamination, or, 
when he goes into society, leaves his Christianity behind him. 
He who does not pass on the influence of the saving leaven is 
working against it. 

There is no need to seek a meaning for the number three. 
The ‘three measures’ may be suggested by Gen. xviii. 6. Nor 
is there any significance in the change from a man (31) to a 
woman (33). Baking is a woman’s work, as sowing seed is a 
man’s. Comp. the change from the sheep-owner to the woman 
in Lk. xv. The important point is the marvellous development, 
external and internal, of Christianity. 

Having concluded the group of four parables spoken to the 
multitudes from the boat (2-33), Mt. now adopts Mk. iv. 33, 34 
as a suitable conclusion, and adds a fulfilment of prophecy 
(34, 35). In adopting Mk. he omits ‘but privately to His own 
disciples He expounded all things.’ The omission may be 
another instance of sparing the Twelve. Perhaps Mt. was un- 
willing to state that they needed to have a// things expounded 
to them. The prophecy is from Ps. Ixxviii. 2, mainly from the 
Hebrew, but perhaps influenced by recollection of the Septuagint. 
‘I will open my mouth with a parable, I will utter riddles con- 
cerning times of old’; z.e. the Psalmist will expound the lessons 
which the history of Israel contains. The Psalmist was not 
directly predicting anything respecting the Messiah’s manner of 
teaching ; but his own method was an anticipation of Christ’s. 
As he used Israel’s past to point a moral, so Christ used the 
facts of nature and of human life to teach the truths of the 
Gospel. On the reading ‘Isaiah’ see Nestle, p. 251. 

We are not told when our Lord left the boat, but that is 
probably included in ‘ He left the multitudes and went into the 
house’ (36). The disciples’ coming to Him (10) is perhaps 
mentioned by anticipation, and we may suppose that the ex- 
planations both of the Sower and of the Tares were given after 
the house had been reached. 

‘The end of the world’ or ‘consummation of the age’ 
(συντέλεια αἰῶνος Or ἡ συντέλεια τοῦ αἰῶνος) is frequent in Mt. 
(39, 49, Χχῖν. 3, XXViii. 20) and in apocalyptic literature (Dalman, 
Words of Jesus, p. 155), and ‘consummation’ (συντέλεια) is 
frequent in the Septuagint.!. Comp. Heb. ix. 26 and Westcott’s 


1 In the Testaments we have συντέλεια τῶν αἰώνων (Levi x. 2) and συντ. 
τοῦ αἰῶνος (Benjamin xi, 3); but in both places texts vary between τ, 
αἰώνων and τ. αἰῶνος. 


196 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [XIII. 42-44 


note. The world is not the Kingdum, although it contains 
‘the sons of the Kingdom.’ But the Son of Man brings the 
Kingdom with Him, and at that consummation ‘the sons of the 
evil one’ may be said for the moment to be zz the Kingdom; 
but they are immediately expelled, as having no right to be in it 
(41). That is the meaning of ‘gather out of His Kingdom.’ 
There are two kinds of evil that are expelled, all that ‘cawse 
stumbling,’ and all that ‘do iniquity.’ The former class indicates, 
what is not stated in the parable, that the tares may cause the 
wheat to degenerate. Iniquity or ‘lawlessness’ (ἀνομία) is in- 
fectious and poisonous, like the fungus on the darnel.! ‘The 
furnace of fire’ occurs only here and ver. 50. Excepting Lk. 
ΧΙ, 28, ‘the weeping and the gnashing of teeth’ is peculiar to 
this Gospel (vill. 12, xili. 42, 50, xxii. 13, xxiv. 51, XXV. 30): in 
none of the passages is anything said about the duration of the 
misery. Compare the Ascension of Isaiah, iv. 18. 

‘Shine forth as the sun’ (43) is a common simile (xvii. 2 ; 
Rev. 1 τὸς Judges v.31; Eeclus. 1 ἢ; Epot Jen,G7). Itas 
especially appropriate here, for they will be in the light of Him 
who is the Sun of righteousness (Dan. xii. 3). The interpretation 
of the Tares closes with the same refrain as the parable of the 
Sower (9) and the praise of John the Baptist (xi. 15). It is 
sometimes misunderstood as referring to a favoured minority, 
gifted with special intelligence as to spiritual truth, or as referring 
to those who are z//ing to hear. A// have ears; and therefore 
all are responsible for refusing to listen. A man cannot plead 
that he was wzadle to hear. The word was brought to him, and 
he rejected it. 

The Evangelist represents the remaining three parables 
(44-50), which complete the total of seven, as spoken to the 
disciples in the house. The first two, like the Mustard-seed and 
the Leaven, are a pair, based on the truth that a man will sacrifice 
all his goods to obtain that which he is convinced is far more 
valuable. That is how every one who knows about it ought 
to feel respecting the Kingdom. No earthly possessions are 
too precious to be given in exchange for it. While the Mustard- 
seed and the Leaven illustrate the progress of the Kingdom in 
society, the Hid Treasure and the Pearl show the Kingdom as 
a personal discovery and acquisition. The two men in the 
parables are alike in two respects: they know a very valuable 
thing when they see it, and they are willing to pay the highest 
price in order to secure it. But they differ in the fact that the 
one finds a great treasure without looking for it, while the other 
has been carefully seeking. This difference is true to life. One 
man suddenly finds himself face to face with a great truth ora 

1 See on vii. 23, p. 117. 


XIII. 44-50] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 197 


noble ideal, in the Bible, in some other book, in the life of an 
acquaintance, in some personal crisis; and he has to make up 
his mind whether to grasp it or let it pass. Another man pain- 
fully seeks and collects all that can give value to life and elevation 
to conduct, and he at last finds something in comparison with 
which everything else is of small account ; and there is not much 
doubt what he will determine to do. Both have found 


“*the great world’s altar-stairs, 
That slope through darkness up to God.” 


There is no need to raise questions as to the morality of the 
man, who hid the treasure before going to buy the field.1 He 
may have hid it to prevent it from being stolen, or to prevent 
himself from being anticipated in buying the field. We are not 
told that he concealed from the owner his reason for being willing 
to give all that he possessed for the field. But even if he was 
guilty of sharp practice, that ought to afford no difficulty. This 
detail, fit is in the parable, is in the framework, and has nothing 
to do with the intended lesson. It is like the alterations in the 
bonds suggested by the Unrighteous Steward (Lk. xvi. 6, 7), and 
has no meaning. It is the man’s readiness to part with all that 
he had, in order to secure the treasure, that counts.? 

‘All that he had.’ It was a heavy price; but in each case 
it was joyfully paid, and Christ’s followers must be ready to do 
the same. ‘He that loveth father or mother more than Me, is 
not worthy of Me’; but ‘ He that loseth his life for My sake, 
shall find it’ (x. 37, 39). Who is it that makes these enormous 
claims upon all mankind? Who is it that offers, to those who 
respond to the claims, such enormous rewards ? 

The parable of the Net is a pair to that of the Tares. It 
teaches the same lesson, and has a similar ending. As in the 
field there are both wheat and tares, so in the draw-net there are 
fishes both good and bad ; and here there is room for the thought, 
though it is not suggested, that there may be degrees of goodness, 
and also of badness, in the fishes in the net. ‘Every kind’ tells 
us nothing as to moral worth, but indicates, in a way that the 
wheat and the tares could not do, that there are all sorts and 
conditions of men in the world. If it were not for the partial 
explanation in ver. 49, the Net might seem to be at variance 

1 Origen makes this represent the economy of hiding the secret meanings 
of Scripture from those who are not able to appreciate them, 

? The change of tense from πέπρακεν (ἐπώλησεν, D) to ἠγόρασεν can hardly 
have any point. The aorist of πιπράσκω seems to be found only in Epic, and 
in late Greek the difference between aor. and perf. became less sharp; comp. 
Jas. i. 24. See Blass, ὃ 59, 5; J. H. Moulton, Gram. of N.7. Gr. p. 142. 


The beginning of ver. 45 should resemble that of ver. 44. The Kingdom is 
like the pearl, not like the merchant. 


198 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XIII. 47-52 


with the Tares, for the fishermen in the former parable seem to 
be analogous to the servants in the latter, and the fishermen do 
separate the bad fish from the good. But the explanation shows 
that those who cast the net into the sea are not the same as 
those who separate the fish. The one is the work of the Apostles 
(iv. 19), the other of the Angels. Till the net is brought to shore 
at the Day of Judgment the bad are free to mix with the good.! 

This second group of parables being ended (44-50), Mt. 
gives another conclusion, which might have served as an ending 
to the whole seven. The two longest parables have been 
interpreted in detail, and a partial interpretation has been given 
of the last parable. The intermediate parables are simpler in 
character, and with the key to the more elaborate ones the 
disciples might be expected to see the meaning of all. Christ 
asks them whether this is so (51), and they reply that they 
have understood. ‘This would convince them that the method 
of teaching by parables, the purpose of which they had 
questioned (10), was a good one: it had instructed themselves, 
and would enable them to instruct others. In a higher and 
better way, they were to be to the Gospel what the Scribes 
were to the Law.? They were to produce, for the benefit of 
their hearers, not merely old things in the old form, but things 
both new and old in a new form; and they were to use old 
things as a vehicle for truths that were new to that generation. 
They were to take the familiar phenomena of nature, and the 
experiences of everyday life, and make them the instruments 
of a spiritual revelation. 

With the formula of transition, ‘when Jesus finished’ (53) 
COMP. Vil. 28, ΧΙ. i, Xill, 53) xix, ΧΧΥΪ ΓΞ GLE makes sasoreak 
preparatory to an incident which illustrates, by an extreme 
case, the rejection of the Messiah by the Jewish people. ‘He 
came unto His own inheritance, and His own people received 
Him not? (jin: 1.11). (Seéson yil, 28,5p) 119: 

This was perhaps the first visit to ‘His own country’ 
Nazareth since the beginning of His public Ministry. They 
were astonished at the wisdom of His teaching in their 
synagogue, and at the report of His mighty works, but they 
were offended that one whom they had known all their lives as 
of humble origin and life, and with whose brothers and sisters 


1 Tt is difficult to believe that Christ could have given these interpretations 
ot the parables of the Tares and of the Net (39, 41, 49), if there are no such 
beings as Angels. They do not look like accommodations to current beliefs. 
And it is not likely that the Angels were no parts of His interpretation, but 
have been ‘mported into it by tradition: comp. xvi. 27, xviii. 10, xxii. 30, 
XXIV. 31, 36, XXV. 91) 41, XXVi. 53. 

3 Διὰ τοῦτο means ‘ Because ye have been made to understand by means 
of parables’; it is almost equivalent to ‘ Well, then,’ 


XIII. 53-55] THE MINISTRY IN GALILEE 199 


they were intimate, should have attained to such eminence. 
Instead of being proud of Him, and glorifying God for Him, 
they were jealous of Him and belittled Him. He was nothing 
but the member of a very ordinary family, and what right had 
He to teach them new ways of life? Christ’s explanation of 
their conduct is a proverb, parallels to which exist in various 
languages. Pindar tells Ergoteles, the runner, that his fame 
would have faded away at the family hearth, if fortune had not 
driven him from home (Olym. xii. 13). Seneca says: Vile 
habetur, quod domi est (De Benef. iii. 3). 

The changes which Mt. makes in the narrative of Mk. are 
of great interest. For ‘Is not this the carpenter, the Son of 
Mary?’ he has, ‘Is not this the carpenter’s Son,? is not His 
mother Mary?’ He shrinks from calling Jesus Himself a 
carpenter, and he separates the two kinds of sonship. Legally, 
as shown by the genealogy in ch. i, Jesus was the Son of 
Joseph ; actually, as shown by the narrative in ch. i, He was 
the Son of Mary. That Mk. does not say ‘the Son of Joseph 
and Mary’ is remarkable. This may imply no more than that 
Joseph was dead; but it may imply that there was no human 
father.1 It cannot imply that Mk. believed that Joseph was 
actually His father. With a similar feeling of reverence, Mt. 
changes ‘He could do no mighty work, save that He laid His 
hands upon a few sick folk, and healed them: And He marvelled 
because of their unbelief’ into ‘He did not many mighty works 
there because of their unbelief.’ He shrinks from the ‘ could 
not,’ and also from the ‘marvelled,’ although he has admitted 
this previously (viii. 10) with regard to the centurion’s great 
faith. Mk. has ‘marvelled’ in both places. The Evangelist 
probably regarded the rejection of Jesus by His own people at 
Nazareth as a prophetic intimation of His rejection by the whole 
nation at Jerusalem ; and he may also have regarded the murder 
of the Baptist, which now follows, as a prophetic type of the 
murder of the Messiah. So detailed a narrative of John’s 
death would not have been given merely to explain the craven 
fear of Antipas that Jesus was the murdered Baptist risen from 
the dead. The story of John’s end is required to complete the 
account of his message to the Messiah and to illustrate the 
Messiah’s eulogy of him (xi. 2-19); and, as the one narrative 
begins with a message carried by John’s disciples from Machaerus 
(xi. 3), so the other narrative ends with one (xiv. 12). 


1 The former is more probable: it explains how Jesus Himself came to 
be called ‘the carpenter.’ The relationships are tersely stated in the Acta 
Thome, 143, Bonnet, p. 250: ἐκλήθη vids Μαρίας παρθένου, καὶ ἠκούσθη υἱὸς 
τέκτονος Iwo. The πρὸς ἡμᾶς of the sisters means ‘in constant intercourse 
with us’: Mk. ix. 19 = Lk. ix. 41; Mk. xiv. 49. 


200 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5: MATTHEW [ XIV. 1 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xiii.: συμφέρειν (2), ἰδού (3), mpocép- 
χεσθαι (10), οἰκοδεσπότης (27, 52), συνάγειν (30, 47), τότε (36), ὁ βρυγμὸς 
τῶν ὀδόντων (42, 50), θησαυρός (44, 52), σαπρός (48), μαθητεύειν (52), 
ἐκεῖθεν (53). Peculiar: ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (ΤΙ, 24, 31, 33, 44, 45, 47, 
52), τὸ ῥηθέν (35), συντέλεια [τοῦ] αἰῶνος (39, 40, 48), διασαφεῖν (36 and xviii. 
31 only). Owing to the subject-matter of the chapter, the number of expres- 
sions in it which occur nowhere else in the N.T. is large: παραβολὴν παρα- 
τιθέναι (24, 31), ἐπισπείρειν (25), ἐνκρύπτειν (33), ἐρεύγεσθαι (35), θεριστής 
(30, 39), ἐκλάμπειν (43), σαγήνη (47), ἀναβιβάζειν (48), ἄγγος (48), μεταίρειν 
(53), συναυξάνειν (30), ζιζάνια (25-30). 

In the translation of the phrase ὁ κλαυθμὸς καὶ ὁ Bp. τ. ὀδόντων the AV. 
again exhibits caprice. In this chapter (42, 50) it is rendered ‘ waz/ing and 
gnashing of teeth,’ elsewhere ‘ weegzng and gnashing of teeth,’ which the RV. 
adopts everywhere. 


XIV. 1-XVIII. 35. THE MINISTRY OF THE MESSIAH 
IN OR NEAR GALILEE. 


This section, like preceding sections, is grouped round a 
prophecy of Isaiah, which is quoted xv. 8, 9; and it ends with 
the discourses on offences and forgiveness. Ch. xviii, like 
V.-Vii., X., and xiii., seems to be meant as the conclusion of a 
section of the Gospel, and it consists, as they do, almost entirely 
of discourses. In this and the following sections, Mt. keeps 
closely to the order of Mk., not breaking it, as he often does 
in the first half of the Gospel, in order to group the materials 
according to similarity of subject. 


XIV. 1-14. 716 Murder of the Baptist and the Retirement 
of the Messiah. 


All three Gospels mention that Herod Antipas heard the 
report of Christ’s mighty works. ‘This cannot refer to the few 
healings at Nazareth just mentioned, but rather to those at 
Capernaum, and the various towns in which He had laboured 
since the plots of the Pharisees had led to His leaving His 
usual centre. It is surprising that Antipas had not heard of 
the fame of Jesus sooner. At Tiberias, where he often had 
his court, the marvellous works done in Chorazin, Bethsaida, 
and Capernaum must have been well known. But Antipas was 
often away from home, and sometimes out of his dominions, 
and princes often know much less than their subjects of what 
goes on close to their doors. The extension of the movement, 
inaugurated by John and carried on by Jesus, would cause it 
to be more noticed by Herod. Now that Christ was moving 
from place to place, while six pairs of Apostles were also 
itinerating in Herod’s dominions, he would be much more 


XIV. 1-3} THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 201 


likely to hear about Christ and His mighty works. But it was 
the report that John whom he had beheaded was risen from 
the dead that specially excited Herod’s interest and fears.} 
That a risen John should work miracles seemed to him probable 
enough, and his guilty conscience was uneasy as to what John’s 
return from the grave might mean for himself. Of all the con- 
jectures that were current respecting Jesus, the belief that He 
was John come to life again seemed to him to be only too 
probable. If we had only Mt., we might think that Antipas 
himself originated this idea, and no other conjectures are 
mentioned. But Lk., who had special information respecting 
Herod’s surroundings, says that Herod was told this first by 
others, and apparently tried to disbelieve it.2 He had tried to 
bury the thought of the murder, but the memory of it had 
risen again and again to torment him, and now the murdered 
man himself seemed to have risen again to rebuke him. Origen 
mentions a tradition that Jesus and John resembled one another ; 
and, if that were true, the theory of John’s resurrection would 
be all the more likely to arise. 

In this indirect way, because Antipas heard of Christ’s 
miracles and thought that He might be the Baptist restored to 
life, the murder of the Baptist comes to be mentioned. No 
doubt it was of great interest to the first body of Christians, 
and hence was preserved in their traditions ; but in the Gospels 
it comes to be recorded because of the interest excited in 
Antipas by Christ. Lk. mentions John’s imprisonment and 
death (iii. 20, ix. 9) but gives no details, and Mt. abbreviates 
the narrative of Mk. It is only in connexion with the Messiah 
that the Baptist is of importance to the Evangelist. John had 
been His Forerunner in the Ministry, and he was to be the 
same in suffering an unjust execution. John preceded the 
Messiah in birth and in mission; and he now precedes Him in 
a violent death. 

Mt. corrects Mk.’s inaccurate ‘img Herod’ by calling him 
‘Herod the ¢etrarch’ (1), as also does Lk. Very possibly it was 
customary to call these petty potentates ‘kings,’ and Mt. himself 
does so later (9) ; but Herodias ruined Antipas by urging him to 
try to get himself recognised as a king by Caligula (Josephus, 
Ant. xvi. vii. 2). The ‘servants’ (τοῖς παισὶν αὐτοῦ) are his 


1 Comp. ‘‘ Then did the ghosts of Alexander and Aristobulus go round 
all the palace, and became the inquisitors and discoverers of what could not 
otherwise be found out” (Josephus, B. Δ 1. xxx. 7). 

* The reading in Mk. is doubtful, but ‘/Aey said’ (B Ὁ and Old Latin) 
is more probable than ‘he said’ (NACL etc.) in vi. 14. ‘They were 
saying . . . Others were saying . . . Others were saying’ is the probable 
connexion. It should be noticed that all these conjectures about Jesus are 
indirect evidence of the reality of His miracles, 


4‘ 


202 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XIV. 3-9 


courtiers, who are called ‘servants’ in Oriental fashion.1 We 
need not suppose that he gossiped with his slaves (δοῦλοι) 
about such things. It was not lawful for him to have Herodias 
as a wife, for her first husband was alive; and even if he had 
been dead, marriage with a sister-inlaw was forbidden (Lev. 
xviii. 16). Antipas had put away his own lawful wife, the 
daughter of King Aretas, in order to form the incestuous union 
with Herodias; and this brought him into disastrous collision 
with Aretas. See Schiirer, Jezrsh People, τ. 11. 17-30; notes on 
2 Cor. xi. 32, 33 in Cam. Grk. Test.; DCG. i. p. 722. The 
enmity of Herodias to John for striving to induce Antipas to 
put her away was implacable. It was mainly her doing that 
Antipas imprisoned John, and she would have persuaded 
Antipas to kill John, if his fear of the people (5) had not 
counterbalanced her urgency. Hence there is no contradiction 
between ‘he would have put him to death’ (5) and ‘the king 
was grieved’ (9). He would have killed John to please 
Herodias; but on all other grounds he was sorry to put him to 
death, for he not only feared the people, but stood in awe of 
John himself (Mk. vi. 20).? 

That the daughter of Herodias was not the daughter of 
Antipas need not be doubted; a daughter of both of them would 
have been only about two years old, while a daughter of 
Herodias by her first husband might be about seventeen. Bad 
as Herod was, he cannot justly be accused of allowing his own 
daughter to degrade herself by dancing to please revellers at a 
banquet. He promised her ‘whatever she should ask,’ to which 
Mk. adds ‘unto the half of my kingdom’ (Esther v. 3, 6, vii. 2). 
This promise ‘with an oath’ he was ashamed to break, especially 
as it had been made in public. Like many weak, bad men, he 
thought more of what people would say of him than of what was 
really sinful; and there are many to whom a breach of the 
decalogue is less dreadful than a breach of etiquette. In such a 
case as his, to have broken the rash oath, into which he had 
been entrapped, would not have been sin, but repentance. But 
the pressure of Herodias, of his oath, and of those who heard it, 
was now too strong for his vacillating conscience, even when 
backed by the fear of the people; and he gave the fatal order.* 


1 Amici principum, plerumque juvenes, says Bengel. Saul talks to his 
‘servants’ in a similar way (1 Sam. xviii. 22-26) ; David also. 
On the omission of ‘Philip’ (3) in D and Latt. see Nestle, Zext Crit. 


252. 

Geach oddly enough suggests that birthday celebrations are wrong ; 
‘‘we find in no Scripture that a birthday was kept by a righteous man.” 
Pharaoh (Gen. xl. 20) and Herod Antipas are the two examples. 

8 The striking parallel between Ahab, Jezebel, Elijah, and Antipas, 
Herodias, John, has often been pointed out, 


XIV. 138] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 203 


There was a palace as well as a fortress and a prison at 
Machaerus, and we may accept the impression produced by the 
narratives, that the banquet was close to John’s prison, and that 
he was beheaded the same day. Herod’s grief is shown in his 
allowing John’s disciples to take away the corpse and give it 
decent burial. It was a courageous thing for them to attempt. 
That ‘they went and told Jesus’ (12) was natural enough, and 
perhaps indicates that they now became His disciples. Their 
telling Him shows that Christ’s rebuke to the Baptist (xi. 6) had 
caused no estrangement between Him and John’s disciples, and 
this last message carried by them from Machaerus forms a 
remarkable counterpart to the first. Then they had carried the 
message of John’s impatience respecting the Messiah ; now they 
carry the news of his cruel death. 

Mt. regards the news of the murder of the Baptist as the 
cause of Christ’s withdrawal to a desert place apart.’! But Mk. 
and Lk. make the withdrawal a consequence of the return of the 
Twelve, who had attracted an embarrassing number of followers. 
Both views may be right; but the withdrawal gives only 
temporary relief from the pressure of the multitudes. While 
Jesus and His disciples take ship and cross the lake (13), the 
people go round by land and find Him once more. As the 
‘Twelve have returned, there is no counter-attraction anywhere, 
and Christ is again the sole centre of teaching and healing.? 
‘He came forth and saw a great multitude’ probably means that 
He left the boat and found a crowd awaiting Him: the people 
had got there first. It means that He came out of His 
retirement. 


XIV. 15-36. The Feeding of Five Thousand and the 
Walking on the Sea. 


The feeding of this multitude is the one miracle which is 
recorded by all four Evangelists, and each makes it the climax of 
the Ministry. Henceforward attention is directed more and 
more to Christ’s predictions of His death, and to the hostility 
which was to bring about their fulfilment. It is Jn. who tells 
us that the miracle took place a little before the Passover, and 
therefore just a year before the Passion. It may be doubted 
whether Mt. had any information other than Mk., whom he 
abbreviates. The difficulty of feeding such a multitude became 


1 Comp. iv. 12, where Jesus withdraws when He hears that John had 
been delivered up to Herod. 

2 Here, as at xix. 2, Mt. substitutes ‘healing’ for the ‘ teaching’ in Mk. 

5. Nevertheless, Mt. alone has; ‘They have no need to go away,’ and 
‘ Bring them hither to Me,’ 


204 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XIV. 15-20 


more pressing as the evening approached, and then (as the 
Synoptists relate) the disciples point it out to Christ: in Jn. He 
takes the initiative in questioning Philip as to what is to be done. 
In reply to His charge, ‘Give ye them to eat,’ Mk. has a 
question, which might sound like sarcasm, ‘Shall we go and buy 
two-hundred pennyworth of bread, and give them to eat?’ Mt. 
omits this, and Lk. turns it differently. Jn. alone mentions that 
it was a lad who had the five loaves, that they were of barley- 
bread, and that it was Andrew who pointed the lad out.! The 
orderly manner in which the multitudes are fed 15. more clearly 
brought out in Mk. and Lk. than in Mt., but Mt. retains their 
being made to sit down before receiving any focd. This was 
security against crowding round the distributors, and all had an 
equal chance of being satisfied: it was also some security against 
waste. The food was given to the Twelve to distribute, and 
perhaps we are to understand that their hunger was satisfied 
first; otherwise they might have been unequal to the work of 
feeding so vast a multitude. In any case, when the miracle is 
understood as a figure of Christ’s methods in supplying the 
spiritual needs of mankind, it is to be noted that it is through 
the Apostles that the human race is fed. The Lord is not tied 
to any one method; but, as a rule, He works through His 
Church. Not, ‘/ will give them,’ but ‘Give ye them to eat’ are 
His words, although ‘I will give them’ would have been true. 
It is through the Christian body as an organized society that the 
Gospel is made known to the world. And it is those who have 
themselves been fed by the Word and know its value, that can 
best pass it on to others. 

Another point to be noted is the narrow limits within which 
the supernatural element in the feeding is restrained. It is 
confined to what was absolutely necessary, and goes no further. 
If an exhibition of power had been the main purpose, something 
much more striking might have been wrought. The food might 
have come down visibly from heaven. It might have been 
not only multiplied, but distributed, miraculously. ‘Ten times 
the amount that was required might have been provided, and it 
might have been of a much richer quality. But there was no 
creation of food. A very small store of existing food was made 
to suffice—we know not how. But all four accounts show 
that in Christ’s hands, and perhaps also in the hands of the 
disciples, the food increased as long as increase was needed. 
That the miracle did not consist in hunger being removed 
without food is shown by the twelve baskets of fragments, an 
amount far exceeding the original store. 


1<¢ As residents of Bethsaida, Philip and Andrew would know how food 
could be procured in that region” (5. J. Andrews, Z7fe of Our Lord, p. 326). 


§ 
8 
4 
x 
E 


XIV. 19-21) THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 205 


This gathering up of the fragments for future use is a remark- 
able feature in all four narratives, and Jn. tells us that it was 
done by Christ’s command. It is an emphatic protest against 
waste, which cannot’ be justified even when God’s gifts are 
superabundantly supplied. And it is a strong guarantee for the 
trustworthiness of the accounts. A writer of fiction would not 
have represented a wonder-worker who could multiply food at 
pleasure as careful about fragments of barley-bread and _ fish, 
And in the narratives of both the miraculous feedings of 
multitudes we have this detail of gathering up the fragments 
carefully preserved (xv. 37; Mk. viii. 8); and again when 
Christ refers to the two miracles (xvi. 9, 10). In fictions about 
an inexhaustible purse, the possessor is not represented as being 
careful against extravagance ; e.g. in Chamisso’s Peter Schlemihi. 
This argument stands, even if we accept the view that the 
feeding of the 4000 is only a divergent account of the feeding of 
the 5000. In that case, although discrepancies have crept in 
with regard to unimportant details, yet the remarkable provision 
against waste of the superfluous food is preserved intact. It is 
impossible, on critical principles, to eliminate this miracle from 
the Gospel story, or to explain it away. See Sanday, Outlines 
of the Life of Christ, pp. 121-123; B. Weiss, Life of Christ, ii. pp. 
381-385 ; ‘‘ The story is a fact supported by the testimony of all 
four evangelists, not a baseless legend, or a religious allegory ” 
(A. B. Bruce, ad loc.); 72 n’y a pas dans Vhistoire évangelique 
Dévénement mieux attesté que celui-ci; mats tl n’y a pas non plus 
dont la caracttre franchement surnaturel soit plus évident ni plus 
incontestable (P. Girodon on Lk. ix. 10-17); Zahn, ad loc. p. 511. 

The blessing or thanksgiving is in all four accounts, as also 
in both accounts of the 4000. It is the usual grace before meals 
said by the host or the head of the house, and we are perhaps 
to understand that it was the means of the miracle. The 
thanksgiving and breaking of bread at the institution of the 
Eucharist is naturally compared with this. And the complete- 
ness of the result is noted by all four; the multitude not only 
ate, but were all filled, and there was food to spare. But Mt. 
alone, in the account of both miracles, adds, after the estimate of 
the numbers, ‘beside women and children’ (xv. 38). He loves 
to emphasize the wonderful character of the Messiah’s mighty 
works ; and perhaps he regarded as certain that only the men 
would be counted in a Jewish estimate of the number. See 
on vill. 16, p. 128. 

‘ And straightway He constrained the disciples to enter into 
the boat, and to go before Him unto the other side’ (Mt. xiv. 22, 
Mk. vi. 45) is a statement which does not explain itself. Evidently 
there is much urgency on the Lord’s part, and apparently there is 


206 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [XIV. 22, 23. 


some unwillingness on theirs. They desire to remain with Him, 
but He desires to be free from them and to be alone for the 
work of dismissing the multitudes. Lk. is silent: we get the 
explanation incidentally from Jn. He tells tis that Jesus perceived 
that the people ‘were about to come and take Him by force, to 
make Him king,’ so great was the effect which the miracle had 
had on them.! Here (they were convinced) was the Messiah for 
whom they had been looking; and He must be made to play the 
part which they had always expected from the Messiah, He 
must be a great popular leader, deliver the nation from the 
Roman yoke, and reign as a still more glorious Solomon. This 
sincere but wrong-headed enthusiasm might easily have infected 
the disciples, and perhaps had already begun to do so, when our 
Lord delivered them from it by quickly sending them away. 
He then freed Himself from the people and retired up the 
mountain-side to pray.” 

This attempt to make Jesus a national king marks the climax 
of the popular enthusiasm for Him. Since the beginning of the 
Ministry this has been on the increase. For some time past 
the hostility of the hierarchy has been on the increase also; and 
henceforward that hostility becomes more and more pronounced, 
while the popular feeling in His favour, although it is by no means 
extinguished, steadily declines. His refusal to be declared a 
king was fatal to His position from the point of view of the Zealots 
and those who sympathized with them. The discourse on the 
Bread of Life put before them a Messiah altogether different 
from the one for whom they were hoping, and perhaps was 
hardly intelligible to many of them. Not only occasional fol- 
lowers, but regular hearers were offended. ‘Upon this many of 
His disciples went back and walked no more with Him’ 
(Jn. vi. 66). Such passages as xvi. 20 and xvii. 9 (comp. Mk. 
Vil. 24, 36) acquire a new significance, when we remember the 
outburst of political feeling after the feeling of the multitudes. 

Christ’s retirement to a ‘mountain’ for stillness and devotion 
(ver. 23) is mentioned several times (Lk. vi. 12, ix. 28). Mt, 
Mk., and Jn. all record it here. 

1 There was a tradition that the Messiah would feed the people with 
bread from Heaven as Moses had done in the wilderness. Jesus had fed the 
people in the wilderness with bread that came in a miraculous way. The 
inference was easy. 

2 Jn. and the Synoptists differ considerably as to the details of what 
followed the feeding of the 5000. According to Jn., Jesus escapes from the 
multitudes without dismissing them ; according to the others He dismisses, 
first the Twelve, and then the multitudes. As so many of the people had 
come on foot from Capernaum and elsewhere, there was nothing surprising 
in Jesus being left behind to return to Capernaum on foot. 


On Mt.’s favourite ‘there’ (ἐκεῖ), where Mk. has nothing of the kind, see 
on xxvii. 47. : 


XIV. 24-27] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 207 


The miracle of Christ walking upon the sea is often spoken 
of asa legend. Goethe said it was one of the most beautiful 
of legends and a special favourite of his. The episode respecting 
Peter teaches so clearly that faith and courage will triumph over 
the greatest obstacles, while doubting timidity is sure to fail. 
But the miracle is reported by two of the Synoptists and sup- 
ported by John; and the addition about Peter, although reported 
by Mt. only, is so exactly in harmony with his character, that 
invention is unlikely. The lesson of the miracle is part of the 
education of the Apostles, and supplements the lesson already 
given by the calming of the storm (villi. 26). Christ is never 
forgetful of His followers, and with Him they have nothing to 
fear. Nor have they anything to fear when they are obeying 
His orders. It was He who had compelled them to enter the 
boat and had sent them across the water, and He would not 
allow them to perish. The criticism that the times given are 
incredible is not very strong. It is urged that Jesus must have 
sent away the multitudes long before 11 p.m. The lake is only 
seven or eight miles broad, and the disciples were near the 
middle of it when Jesus approached them about the fourth 
watch of the night, which begins at 3 a.m. They cannot have 
been five or six hours in rowing three or four miles. But there 
is no real difficulty here. They may have lingered near the 
shore for an hour or two watching the dispersion of the crowds, 
and wondering whether, after all, Christ would not require to be 
taken over in the boat.!. When they did begin to cross, ‘the 
wind was contrary,’ and they may often have been driven back. 
They were ‘ tormented’ (βασανιζομένους) by the laborious rowing, 
and it was part of their lesson that they should be disheartened 
and worn out by fruitless exertions before He came to their aid.? 

They would no doubt remember the time when Jesus had 
calmed the storm on the lake and freed them from danger ; but 
that thought would increase their distress. Then it was daylight, 
and Jesus was with them; now it is night, and He is away. 
Why had He sent them out into the storm without Him? But, 
though they could not see Him, He was watching them from 
the shore (Mk. vi. 47, 48). His delay in going to help them is 
like His delay in going to Lazarus. ‘Now Jesus loved Martha, 
and her sister, and Lazarus. When /¢herefore He heard that he 
was sick’ (not, He went to them at once, but) ‘ He abode at 
that time two days in the place where He was’ (Jn. xi. 5, 6). 
It was just because He loved His disciples so well that He let 


ae says: ‘It was now dark, and Jesus had not yet come to them’ 
(vi. 17). 

? Mk. says that the déscip/es were ‘tormented’; Mt. applies this expres- 
sion to the deat (comp. viii. 6, 29, and see Gould on Mk. vi. 48). 


208 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 85. MATTHEW [ XIV. 25-31 


their trouble do its work before He relieved them. Not until 
the last watch of the night does He come to them, and then 
they do not know Him! It often happens that the means 
which He uses to help His servants are not recognized as His, 
and are not recognized as help. Possibly they thought that 
this apparition was a messenger of death to them, or that Jesus 
Himself had perished, and that this was His ghost. ‘They 
cried out for fear.’ And then He answered them with cheering, 
assuring, encouraging words, and, like the Magdalen at the 
tomb, they knew Him by His voice. They knew that He who 
before had said to the winds ‘ Peace, be still,’ was He who, with 
still stranger power, ‘treadeth upon the waves of the sea’ (Job 
ix. 8).!_ Their fear of Him and their distress at the storm’ were 
both dispelled. ‘Then are they glad, because they are at rest ; 
and so He bringeth them unto the haven where they would be’ 
(Ps. cvii. 30). 

Both Mt. and Mk. report the ‘walking upon the sea,’ and 
Mk. relates that ‘they αὐ saw Him’: there was no delusion. 
Mk. also says that ‘ He wished to pass by them’ (ἤθελεν παρελθεῖν 
αὐτούς), which Mt. omits, perhaps disliking the expression of an 
apparent change of mind on His part. He was passing them, 
and of course they supposed that He purposed to do so. 
Perhaps we may say that He would have gone by, if they had 
not cried out : some expression of their need was required. He 
is ready to give help, but it must be asked for. How many 
blessings are lost, because men do not pray for them! And 
here there was no definite prayer; merely a cry of distress, and 
it sufficed. The disciples had faith to believe in Him, when 
He spoke. With ‘Be of good cheer’ comp. ix. 2, 22, and with 
‘Fear not’ comp. 1. 20, x, 26, 28, 31, xvii. 7), ΚΣΥΠΙ. 5; ΤΟ: 

We have no means of knowing how the Evangelist became 
acquainted with the incident respecting Peter ; but it was prob- 
ably current among the circle of first Christians who had known 
Peter. Mt. evidently had a special interest in the Apostle whom 
he expressly calls ‘first’ of the Twelve (x. 2, comp. viii. 14, 
EV;, 15, Xvi. 16-23, Xvil. 24, ΧΥΠ 21). Elis) ‘if 1) be Dhow 
indicates that Peter’s doubts are not quite dispelled; but the 
Lord’s ‘Come’ is as sufficient for him, as His command to let 
down the nets on a previous occasion (Lk. ν. 5). It was simply 
a question of faith, whether the disciple could do what the 
Master could do (xvii. 20, xxi. 21).2 But the boisterous weather 

1’ Ἐγώ εἶμι cannot mean ‘I am ¢he Christ’ (Mk. xiii. 6=Mt. xxiv. 5). 
If Jesus revealed Himself as the Christ on this occasion, xvi. 17 could hardly 
have been spoken. 

2 Salmon points out how the way in which Peter acts in Jn. xxi. confirms 


the narrative here. In both we seem to have the report of an eye-witness 
(Zhe Human Element, p. 322). 


Ῥ 
hj 


XIV. 28-31] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 209 


made him afraid, and fear shook his faith; yet not entirely. 
Even while he is sinking, he believes that Jesus can save him; 
he has not lost all confidence, either in His power or in His 
readiness to save. Comp. vill. 25, 26. 

The more we study this narrative respecting S. Peter, the 
more assured we may be that it cannot be invention ; and thus 
this addition which Mt. makes to the miracle of Christ walking 
upon the sea increases our belief in the reality of that miracle. 
What is told us in these four verses (28-31) is so in harmony 
with Peter’s character, is such an anticipation of his conduct a 
year later, and is so beautiful in itself as an illustration of Christ’s 
way of dealing with His Apostles, that we may safely regard it 
as beyond the power of any early Christian to invent. There is, 
on Peter’s side, the combination (so strange and yet so natural) 
of confidence in the Master and confidence in himself. There 
is the usual impulsiveness (partly good and partly evil) to join 
the Lord at once and to be before the others in doing so. 
There is perhaps also the wish to do something dangerous, if not 
for its own sake, at least to prove his trust in Jesus. Yet he 
asks leave before acting. Then come, first fear, then a loss of 
trust, and then failure. Just a year later there was the same 
impulsiveness: ‘I will lay down my life for Thee’; the same 
self-confidence in entering the palace of the high priest and 
warming himself at the public fire; and the same result of 
sinking before a blast of adverse criticism. On both occasions 
it was because trust in himself had taken the place of faith in 
Christ, that Christ’s support was withdrawn, and he sank. But 
only fora time. In each case the greatness of the failure works 
its own cure,—on the lake, in a few seconds, at Jerusalem, in 
a few days. And Peter is not blamed for desiring to walk on 
the water to come to Christ, nor yet for professing a willingness 
to die for Him. It is not demonstrative affection that causes 
Christ to leave him to himself, that he may find out his own 
weakness. The affection was genuine, and forwardness in 
showing it would have been welcome, had it not been a sign of 
impetuosity rather than of depth. Neither he nor Mary Magda- 
len (Jn. xx. 15) was rebuked for undertaking what was beyond 
their strength ; love does not always stop to measure possibilities. 
But there was something of presumption in the eager approach 
of both of them; and in his case there was forthwith a lack of 
trust. And it is for this that Peter was rebuked. ‘O thou of 
little faith’ (not, Wherefore didst thou attempt to come?, but) 
‘Wherefore didst thou doubt ?’ 

But, seeing that the incident is so full of spiritual meaning, 
may it not all be a parable, constructed for the sake of the 
lessons which it conveys? Possibly ; but constructed by whom? 


14 


210 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ XIV. 33-36 


If we could suppose that it had the same author as the Good 
Samaritan or the Prodigal Son, this theory of its origin would 
be credible. But such a supposition is not admissible. If the 
incident never took place, then it has been imagined by some 
early disciple ; and we know of no one who could imagine such 
things. 

When the Lord and Peter had entered the boat, ‘the wind 
(that had hindered the progress of the disciples and had shaken 
Peter’s faith) ceased.’ Jn. gives a different account; as soon as 
the disciples were willing to receive Him into the boat, ‘the boat 
was at the land whither they were going’ (vi. 21). Mt., as often, 
spares the Twelve ; instead of Mk.’s ‘they were sore amazed, for 
they understood not concerning the loaves, but their heart was 
hardened,’ Mt. has ‘they worshipped Him, saying, Of a truth 
Thou art God’s Son’ (Ἀληθῶς Θεοῦ vids et). His use of his 
favourite verb ‘worship’ is again to be noticed, and also the 
expression ‘God’s Son,’ instead of ‘the Son of God’ (6 vids τοῦ 
Θεοῦ). They are sure that He is more than human ; but perhaps 
even yet they are not sure that He is the Messiah. The miracle 
of the loaves had impressed them less than it had impressed the 
multitude. 

In what follows, Mt. abbreviates Mk. considerably, but he 
omits nothing of great importance. He seems to regard 
Gennesaret as a town rather than a district or plain. Josephus 
describes it (B. 7. ut. x. 8). See DCG. i. 640. It would seem 
as if the Lord’s purpose was to teach, and especially to educate 
His disciples, rather than to heal. He does not refuse to heal 
when the sick are brought to Him, but He does not seek them 
out. They are allowed to touch His garments (ix. 20), when 
they beg to do so, and their faith is rewarded in all cases ; but it 
appears as if this was something forced upon Him, rather than 
an opportunity which He sought. It is as if He had other 
work to do, and yet was too full of compassion to let this pass.? 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xiv.: προσέρχεσθαι (12, 15), ἀναχωρεῖν 
(13), ἐκεῖθεν (13), ἐκεῖ (23), ὀλιγόπιστος (31), προσκυνεῖν (33). Peculiar: ἐν 
ἐκείνῳ τῷ καιρῷ (1), καταποντίζεσθαι (30 and xviii. 6 only), προβιβάζειν 
(8 only). Some inferior texts (H LP) read προεβίβασαν for κατεβίβασαν in 
Acts xix. 33. The verb is used in Deut. vi. 7 of teaching beforehand, 
impressing on the memory ; comp. Exod. xxxv. 34. Only here and xxviii. 
17 does διστάζειν occur in the N.T. In ver. 13 it is neither easy nor 
important to decide between πεζῇ (BC DE etc.) and πεζοί (NI LZ etc.): 
the former occurs Mk. vi. 33, the latter nowhere else in the N.T. 


1 Mt. again makes a change in the wording of Mk. in order to enhance 
the miracles. Mk. says that those who touched were bezmg made whole 
(ἐσώζοντο). Mt. says that they weve made (there and then) ¢horoughly whole 
(διεσώθησαν) ; and he inserts ‘only’ before ‘touch,’ and ‘all’ before ‘ that 
were sick. 


Χν. 1-ὅ] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 211 


The insertion οἱ πάντας in ver. 35 before τοὺς κακῶς ἔχοντας (comp. Mk. 
vi. 55) is similar to that in vili, 16 (comp. Mk. i. 34) and that in xii. 15 
(comp. Mk. iii. 10). In each case the wish to emphasize the completeness of 
the Messiah’s beneficence is conspicuous. What did the Jews mean when 
they contended that Jesus had never given a sign of His Messiahship? And 
Mt.’s insertion of μόνον in ver. 36 is similar to that in viii. 8(comp. Lk. vii. 7) 
and that in ix. 21 (comp. Mk. v. 28). 


XV. 1-20. Conflict with Pharisees and Scribes from 
Jerusalem. 


Our Evangelist continues to follow Mk. and to abbreviate . 
considerably. Both tell us that the hierarchy at Jerusalem are 
on the alert, and that emissaries are sent to watch and question 
the now notorious Rabbi from Nazareth; but Mt. makes His 
rejoinder to their criticisms more pointed than Mk. does. They 
ask, ‘Why do Thy disciples transgress the tradition of the 
elders?’ To which He replies with the question, ‘Why do ye 
also transgress the commandment of God for the sake of (not 
‘by,’ AV.) your tradition?’ There is no question, and no ‘ye 
also’ in Mk. Moreover, Mt. changes ‘For JZoses said’ into 
‘For God said,’ which makes the contrast with ‘But ye say’ 
much stronger ; and he brings in the quotation from Isaiah at 
the close of the rebuke. 

Seldom has tradition had such power as among the Pharisees 
at the time of Christ. The Talmud says that Moses received 
the oral Law at Sinai, and handed it on (through Joshua, the 
elders, and the Prophets) to the men of the Great Synagogue, 
who enjoined three things: ‘Be deliberate in judgment ; raise 
up many disciples ; and make a fence for the Law.” ‘This fence 
consisted of a vast number of precepts and prohibitions to 
supplement and protect the written Law. Some teachers went 
the length of maintaining that this oral or traditional Law was of 
greater authority than the written Law. The written Law had 
originally been oral, which showed that the oral Law had 
precedence. Hastings’ DJB., art. ‘Law,’ iii. 66; DCG., art. 
‘Tradition,’ 

It is not certain what was the exact practice which Christ 
condemned in the matter of Cordan=‘given to God’ (s); 
whether it was a mere evasion by which the son pretended to 
dedicate his possessions by a vow to God, and thus escaped the 
duty of supporting his parents without actually surrendering his 
property ; or whether it was a vea/ dedication, perhaps made in 
haste or in anger, but which the Scribes held to be binding 
(Wright, Sywopsis, p. 69). The latter alternative seems to agree 
better with ‘He shall not honour his father’ (Mt.) and ‘Ye no 
longer suffer him to do aught for his father or his mother’ (Mk.). 


212 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ΧΥ͂. 5-11 


It a son, no matter how heedlessly or maliciously, had once 
uttered a vow that his property was dedicated to God, the Scribes 
maintained that at all costs the vow must stand: his parents 
must starve rather than his vow be left unfulfilled. ‘Thus their 
tradition respecting the irrevocable character of a vow was 
preferred to the Fifth Commandment. See Driver on Deut. 
xxili. 24; Toy on Prov. xx. 25, xxviii. 24; Barton on Eccles. 
v. 4; in the Lut. Crit. Comm. Josephus (BL. Δ 11. xv. 1) describes 
the vow taken by Berenice, but it throws little light on Corban. 

The vow might have been kept without the parents being 
left to starve. A reasonable solution might have been that the 
Temple, in taking over the son’s property, took over also his 
obligations to his parents; but the guardians of the treasury 
would probably have objected to that. Christ does not contend 
that the tradition about washing before meals is worthless, but 
He intimates that the condemnation of the disciples’ transgression 
was excessive, and that it came with ill grace from these Scribes. 
He, moreover, points out the danger of excessive devotion to 
traditions, which may lead to violation of the plainest moral 
obligations. Rigid scrupulosity about things of little moment 
may be accompanied with utterly unscrupulous conduct in 
matters that are vital. Hence the charge of hypocrisy. These 
Scribes professed to be jealous defenders of God’s Law; but 
what they really cared about was their own traditions about the 
Law, and these were often foolish, if not positively immoral.t 

We may suppose that the Scribes were unable to answer 
Christ (10); but, while He had been defending the disciples from 
their Pharisaical criticisms, a crowd had gathered. Having 
concluded His condemnation of the fault-finders, Jesus bids the 
multitude approach and listen to the practical outcome of the 
question which had been raised. ‘The Pharisees held that it was 
necessary to wash the hands before a meal. But why? Lest 
one had become ceremonially unclean, and this uncleanness 
should be communicated to the food, which would then make 
every one who partook of it unclean. ‘But,’ says Christ, ‘there 
is no real defilement in that. Nothing that goes into a man 
from the outside can defile a man; it is the things which proceed 
from him that may defile him.’ 3 

The verses which follow (12, 13) are peculiar to Mt. It was 
inevitable that the Pharisees should be scandalized: if a man 
could not be defiled by the food which he ate, what became of 


1On the quotation in vv. 8, 9, which differs from the LXX. in an 
exceptional manner, see Swete, 7222. to the O.7. in Greek, Ὁ. 3093. 

2 Did neither 5. Luke nor S. Paul know this saying? Lk. does not 
report it, and the Apostle makes no allusion to it when he discusses the 
eating of meats offered to idols. 


XV. 12-14] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 213 


the Mosaic prohibition of certain meats as being unclean? Mk. 
(vii. 19) remarks that, in saying this, Christ did make all meats 
clean. Yes, He did, in the sense that He made all food morally 
indifferent: with ceremonial distinctions about food He did not 
interfere. But the Scribes were constantly guilty of the fatal 
mistake of confusing ceremonial and moral, and of making mere 
externals to be of the essence of religion. It was out of their 
uncharitable hearts that this attack on the disciples proceeded, 
and it implied that the omission of the usual ablutions was a 
grievous sin. Granted that the ablutions ought not to be left 
undone, charitable action ought certainly to be done. Those 
who could place ablutions before charity were not plants of the 
Divine planting, but weeds that would be rooted up.! 

The saying about the blind guides (14) is not in Mk. and is 
given in Lk. (vi. 39) in quite a different connexion; comp. 
xxiii. 16, 24. The saying would seem to have been known to 
S. Paul (Rom. 11, 19), but perhaps as a proverb, rather than as 
an utterance of Christ. Sanday and Headlam quote as said by 
a Galilean peasant to R. Chasda, Baba Kama, fol. 52a: ‘ When 
the Shepherd is angry with the sheep, He blinds their leader,” 
which is analogous to Quos Deus vult perdere, prius dementat by 
giving them bad rulers. There is a blindness which excuses 
(Jn. ix. 41), but that was not the blindness of the Pharisees.? 

Mt. again shows his special interest in S. Peter by recording 
that it was he who asked for an explanation (15): see on xiv. 28. 
As in the case of the Sower, Jesus is surprised that the disciples 
require an explanation ;* but in each case He gives one. By 
substituting ‘out of the mouth’ for ‘out of the man,’ Mt. makes 
the parable less easy of interpretation ; for the disciples would 
understand ‘ out of the mouth,’ like ‘into the mouth,’ to refer to 
the food. And the substitution of ‘mouth’ for ‘man’ somewhat 
mars the interpretation, for murders, adulteries, and thefts can 
hardly be said to proceed from the mouth. Allen quotes a 
remarkable parallel from Edmunds, Luddhist and Christian 
Gospels, p. 95: “Destroying life, killing, cutting, binding, 
stealing, speaking lies, fraud and deceptions, worthless reading, 
intercourse with another’s wife—this is defilement, but not the 
eating of flesh.” The inclusion of “‘ worthless reading” is very 


1 This perhaps refers to the parable ot the Tares. The meaning may be 
that God planted the Commandments, and that the Pharisees sowed their 
noxious traditions among them, The writer of the Ascension of Isaiah (iv. 3) 
shows acquaintance with Mt. xv. 13. 

* Note the pres. subj., ἐὰν ὁδηγῃ, ‘if he be leading,’ and comp. v. 23. 

3 The adverbial accusative ἀκμήν is found nowhere else in the N.T. or LXX. 
It is very rare in Attic. The meaning appears to be ‘ up to this point,’ ¢ still’ ; 
Mk. has οὕτως. Mk. nowhere uses στόμα, which is frequent in Mt. and Lk., 
but occurs only once in Jn. 


214 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ΧΥ͂. 14-21 


striking. On ver. 20 Origen remarks that it is eating with un- 
washed ear? that defiles the man, and he applies this specially 
to intellectual food. 

The contrast between the treatment of the involuntary dull- 
ness of the disciples, and the self-satisfied blindness of the 
Scribes is here very marked. The disciples were aware of their 
dullness, and asked to have it removed. The Scribes were con- 
fident that they had sight (Jn. ix. 41), and were competent to 
censure all who differed from them; it was a case of the mote 
and the beam. Jesus rebukes, but removes the dullness. The 
blindness is condemned, but, until it is confessed it cannot be 
removed; and there is little hope that it will be confessed. 
Those who claim to lead are not likely to admit that they are 
blind. Therefore on them is pronounced one of the sternest of 
Christ’s judgments: ‘ Let them alone.’ 


Perhaps (with BD LZ) we ought in ver. 14 to omit τυφλῶν and read 
ὁδηγοί εἰσιν τυφλοί, ‘they are blind guides.’ In Lk. vi. 39 the connexion 
seems to be that, before judging others, we ought to judge ourselves ; other- 
wise we shall be blind guides. The saying was probably already a proverb, 
and may have been uttered by Christ more than once. The specially grievous 
thing about the blindness of the Pharisees was that it caused others also to 
fall into a pit. These others Christ was even willing to help, and hence His 
address to the people (10, 11). In the Testaments, the last of the seven 
spirits given to man at his creation is said to be ‘‘ filled with ignorance, and 
it leadeth the young man as a blind man to a pit” (ezdez ii. 9). 

Mt. greatly abbreviates Mk.’s list of sins (comp. ver. 19 with Mk. vii. 21, 
22). He omits πλεονεξίαι, δόλος, ἀσελγεία, ὀφθαλμὸς πονηρός, ὑπερηφανία, and 
dgppostvn—six out of thirteen. But he adds one, Wevdouaprupia. The 
reason for this is obvious. The sins in Mk. are in no particular order, but 
Mt. arranges them according to the decalogue: ‘murders, adulteries, 
fornications, thefts’ represent the sixth, seventh, and eighth commandments, 
and ‘false witness’ is added to represent the ninth. ‘‘This would greatly 
assist the learner who had a lesson to repeat” (Wright, p. 71). 


XV. 21-28. Zhe Great Faith of the Canaanitish Woman. 


The hostility of the religious leaders, as manifested in the 
censures of the emissaries from Jerusalem, causes Christ to 
move northward to the frontier of Galilee and beyond it. The 
delegates of the hierarchy would not be likely to follow Him into 
heathen territory. He was perhaps also anxious to escape from 
the mistaken enthusiasm of the multitudes. One of the chief 
features of this last year of the Ministry is the instruction of the 
disciples, especially respecting His approaching Passion and 
Resurrection; and quiet, both from insidious opposition and 
from noisy popularity, was required for this, but it could not 


1 Mk. vii. 24 and Mt. xv. 21 can hardly mean less than that He crossed 
the border. 


“ae 


XV. 22-24] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 215 


always be obtained. Mt. as in ver. 12, omits Mk.’s vague state- 
ment that ‘ He entered into a house,’ and, as in xiii. 58, he omits 
that Christ was unable to do what He wished: ‘He would have 
no man know it; and He could not be hid’ (Mk. vii. 24). 

This woman (22) was a Greek-speaking descendant of the old 
inhabitants of Syrian Pheenicia. ‘The Clementine Homilies call 
her Justa, and her daughter Bernice (ii. 19, iii. 73). The contrast 
between this incident and the narrative which immediately follows 
it is very great. In the one case we have a solitary healing, 
obtained with apparent difficulty by the persistent clamour of the 
sufferer’s mother; in the other we have the healing and feeding 
of multitudes, who have only to place themselves before Him to 
find ready compassion and help. It is the difference between 
heathendom and Israel, between ‘dogs’ and ‘children.’ The 
whole is an object-lesson to the disciples of the prior claim of the 
Jews to His and their ministrations. The childen must first be 
filled. 

The narrative in Mt. is more dramatic than that of Mk. It 
moves from point to point, each marked by ‘He answered.’ 
The woman’s first appeal He met by silence: ‘ He answered her 
not a word.’ The disciples’ appeal ‘He answered’ with the 
claims of ‘the lost sheep of the house of Israel.’ The woman’s 
second appeal ‘He answered’ with the contrast between the 
children and the dogs. Her third appeal ‘ He answered’ with 
high praise and immediate granting of her réquest. Of these 
four appeals and answers, Mk. gives only the last two, and we 
are in ignorance as to the source of the other two. The wording 
of the two which Mt. has in common with Mk. differs so con- 
siderably from his that it is probable that he is using some other 
authority than Mk.? This takes us back a long way, if each 
Evangelist is using an authority earlier than Mk., and if differences 
have already arisen between these two early sources. Mk.’s 
narrative seems to imply that the whole incident took place ina 
house. Mt.’s implies that, as Jesus and His company were on 
their way, the woman came and cried after them. Perhaps Mt. 
was unwilling to record that Jesus had entered a house in a 
heathen land. 

We have twice had the expression ‘Son of David’ used in 


1 Josephus (Coz. Apion. i. 13) says that these Phoenicians ‘‘bore the 
greatest ill-will” towards the Jews; and this hostility helps to explain our 
Lord’s attitude towards one of these hereditary foes of Israel. 

2 Note Mk’s imperfects (ἠρώτα, ἔλεγεν), implying that more was said on 
both sides than is actually recorded. Mt. also has imperfects (ἔκραζεν, 
ἠρώτουν, προσεκύνει) in what is peculiar to his narrative, although he so often 
turns Mk.’s imperfects into aorists. And whereas he usually abbreviates, 
here he enlarges. This heathen woman, like the heathen centurion, has a 
special interest for him. 


216 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [ΧΥ͂. 28-26 


addressing or speaking of Christ (ix. 27, xii. 23), but in both 
cases it is in the mouth of Jews. If Mt. is right in attributing it 
to this heathen woman, we must suppose that when she heard 
of Christ’s miraculous powers she also heard something of His 
royal descent. ‘There is nothing incredible in this; indeed, she 
may have come in contact with a disciple. Mk. does not re- 
present any one as addressing Jesus as the Son of David until 
near the close of the Ministry (x. 47, 48); and Mt. may have 
thought that a heathen who in the end was accepted by Jesus 
must at least have recognized Him as the Messiah. 

Evidently the disciples’ ‘Send her away’ means ‘ Do what she 
asks and get rid of her.’ Christ’s reply to them requires this 
meaning ; He explains why He does σοί do what is asked. But 
there is more real compassion in His refusal than in their manner 
of supporting her request. They care for themselves, not for her. 
He recalls His own charge to them when He sent them forth 
(x. 6); it is the lost sheep of the house of Israel that have the 
prior claim, and for the present they fully occupy Him and the 
Twelve. He must act in accordance with His Father’s mission. 
It is through the Jews that the Kingdom is to be opened to the 
whole world. If they are neglected, the revelation will be 
stopped at its source. He must not begin a ministry of healing 
among the heathen, for this would absorb time and energy which 
is already too little for the work of winning and educating Jews 
to be missionaries to Jew and Gentile alike. Comp. Jn. x. 16-18, 
Mi. §2, Kil, 22, ΧΥΠ 20: 

The woman’s next appeal is made with the ‘shamelessness’ 
(Lk. xi. 8) of the Friend at Midnight and the pertinacity of the 
Importunate Widow (Lk. xviii. 2-5). She makes it still more 
imploringly, and in describing her attitude Mt. uses his favourite 
‘worshipped.’ She does not repeat her trouble ; He knows this 
already ; she merely persists in her supplication: ‘Lord, help 
me.’ The third ‘He answered’ is the most surprising of all, and 
we may feel sure that it could not have been invented. It is not 
merely a refusal, but a harsh refusal. It repeats the reason for 
refusing which He had already given to the disciples, and repeats 
it in a way which seems to be intentionally offensive. But there 
are two things in the reply which mitigate the harshness, one of 
which is lost in Mt.’s account. Mk. has: ‘Let the children firsz 
be filled ; for it is not meet,’ etc. This implies that later there 
will be food for those who are not children; but Mt. omits it, 
perhaps as seeming to be superfluous. The other mitigating item 
is that the word for ‘dogs’ is a diminutive, ‘ doggies’ (κυνάρια). 
Mt. is not so fond of diminutives as Mk., and here (22) he changes 
Mk.’s θυγάτριον to θυγάτηρ. But he does not change the ‘ doggies’ 
into ‘dogs.’ Among various nations ‘dog’ is an opprobrious 


XV. 27, 28] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 217 


name for one of a different religion. This is specially common 
in the East, where large dogs act as scavengers in the city, are 
generally fierce and noisy, and often diseased. ‘Dog of an 
infidel,’ ‘dog of a Jew,’ ‘dog of a Christian.’ But Christ’s saying 
refers to domesticated animals, household pets and companions ; 
and the diminutive, which in late Greek often loses its force, is 
here very appropriate. 

The diminutive, while it makes Christ’s refusal more gentle, 
gives the woman an opening, which she sees and uses. Love for 
her child sharpens her wit and strengthens her persistency. She 
does not claim to be one of the children, and has no thought of 
depriving them of their bread. She accepts the position of one 
of the family dogs. But such animals ave members of the 
household, and they get what the children do not want. With- 
out confusing the difference between Jews and heathen, and 
without depriving the Jews of anything that is theirs, He may 
grant her request. The metaphor which Christ had used as a 
reason for rejecting her petition she turns into a reason for 
granting it. And He joyfully (if we may venture to say so) 
allows Himself to be worsted in argument, for He at once 
accepts her interpretation of the metaphor as proof of her insight 
and faith.1 With doglike perseverance, she had excelled even 
the children in trust, and assuredly she might receive what the 
children would never miss. Comp. Job xxiii. 4-6. 

The faith of this heathen Canaanite, like that of the heathen 
centurion (viii. 10), excites Christ’s admiration. Both of them 
believed that Jesus could heal at a distance, and both of them 
trusted to His compassion to do so. But the woman’s trust was 
more sorely tried, and she had not had the centurion’s advantage 
of living among Jews and of being under the influence of the 
Jews’ religion. These special commendations of the faith of a 
heathen woman and of a heathen man in the First Gospel should 
be compared with the special revelations of His Messiahship to a 
schismatical woman and an excommunicated man in the Fourth 
Gospel (iv. 26, ix. 37). 

In ‘Yea, Lord; for even’ B and Syr-Sin. omit the ‘for’ (which is 
wanting in the true text of Mk. vii. 28): Nal, κύριε, καὶ τὰ κυνάρια, instead 
of καὶ yap τὰ κυνάρια. The omission of the γάρ considerably influences the 


meaning. If there is no ‘for,’ then the woman’s reply may mean, ‘ Quite so, 
Lord ; and the doggies under the table eat of the children’s crumbs’; ze. 


1TIn Mk, it is the woman’s ready wit (διὰ τοῦτον τὸν λόγον) that is com- 
mended ; in Mt., her fazth. She had both. That her daughter was cured 
immediately, a detail which enhances the miracle, is in Mt. only. Comp. 
Vili. 13, ix. 22, xvii. 18. In a similar way, when the disciples asked why 
they could not cast out the demon from the epileptic boy, Mk. gives as the 
reply, ‘This kind cannot go out save by prayer’ (ix. 29), while Mt. has, 
* Because of your little fazth’ (xvii. 20). 


218 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XV. 29-39 


‘You have stated my position correctly ; I aw only a dog under the table ; 
in that case I may hope for the children’s leavings.’ But, if we read καὶ γάρ 
with the immense preponderance of authorities, then ‘ Yea, Lord’ must refer, 
not to Christ’s utterance, but to the woman’s own request. ‘ Yea, help me, 
for You may do so without wronging the children.’ In Mk. there is a 
Western reading (Ὁ) and Old Lat.) ἀλλὰ καί instead of καὶ γάρ. This ties 
the ‘ Yea’ to Christ’s utterance, and καί is not ‘and’ but ‘even’; ‘Just so; 
but even the dogs,’ etc. 


XV. 29-89. Mumerous Miracles of Healing and the Feeding 
of Four Thousand. 


Mt. at once shows that the children did not suffer through 
the granting of a crust to a Canaanite. Mk. gives only one 
miracle before the feeding, that of the deaf stammerer being 
healed by touch, and spittle, and ‘ Ephphatha’ uttered with a 
sigh. Mt. omits this altogether, perhaps because he dislikes the 
means used ; for he prefers that Christ should heal with a word 
only (ix. 5, viii. 16). He also dislikes recording that Christ was 
sometimes flagrantly disobeyed, as Mk. (vil. 36) says that He 
was on this occasion. See Allen, p.170. But Mt. may have 
substituted a group of miracles spontaneously wrought on Jews 
in Jewish territory for the Ephphatha miracle, in order to make 
a greater contrast to the one miracle, tardily wrought after much 
entreaty, on a heathen in heathen territory. The Messiah is 
once more among His own people and in His own domain, 
and works of healing are the natural outcome of His royal 
bounty and power. The people are amazed at His varied 
power,? which is recognized as being for the exclusive benefit of 
the privileged nation; for ‘they glorified the God of Jsrael.’ 
‘The God of Israel’ is a rare expression in the N.T. (Lk. i. 68; 
Acts xiii. 17). In the O.T. it distinguishes Jehovah from the 
gods of other nations (Exod. v. 1; 1 Kings xi. 9) and is very 
frequent. These two verses (30, 31) are peculiar to Mt. bat 
comp. Mk. vil. 37. 

It must remain doubtful whether the narrative of the feeding 
of 4000 people is merely a variant of the feeding of the 5000, or 
represents a different miracle. In favour of there being only 
one miraculous feeding are the similar details, the fact that 
numbers frequently get changed in tradition, and the improba- 
bility that the disciples would express a difficulty about feeding 
a multitude, when Jesus had fed a still larger one only a few 
weeks before. But, if there were two miraculous feedings, many 


1 The imperfect (ἐκάθητο) implies that He rested there some time, as 
feeling at home there. 

2 The fact that Mt. puts ‘ the dumb speaking’ /7s¢ among the works which 
excited wonder shows that he knew the Ephphatha incident. 


a 


XV. 80-39) THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 210 


of the details would be sure to be similar, and the differences in 
the numbers occur not only as to the crowd, but as to the 
loaves and the baskets. Besides these differences, the attend- 
ance on Christ for ‘three days’ is peculiar to the 4000, meaning 
that they had been with Him ‘since the day before yesterday’ ; 
so also is the diminutive ἰχθύδια for the fishes, and it evidently 
means ‘smad/ fishes’ (RV.). Above all there is the different 
word for ‘baskets.’ All four Evangelists use κόφινοι of the 
5000, and both Mt. and Mk. use σφυρίδες of the 4000; and 
this distinction is observed in referring to the two miracles 
afterwards (xvi. 9, 10; Mk. viii. 19, 20). The κόφινος was a 
wallet, the σφυρίς a hamper, capable of holding a man (Acts ix. 
25). But 5. Paul himself uses σαργάνη of the basket in which 
he was let down (2 Cor. xi. 33), and we cannot be sure that a 
σφυρίς was generally larger than a κόφινος. See Hastings’ DB. 
and DCG., art. ‘ Basket.’ 

ds to the perplexity of the disciples, it must be noted that it 
is not they but our Lord who calls attention to the necessity for 
help ; and it is possible that both in His words and in their 
reply there is a reference to the earlier miracle. He says: ‘If I 
send them away fasting to their home, they will faint in the 
way’ (Mk.); ‘I do not wish to send them away fasting, lest 
haply they faint in the way’ (Mt.). This may mean, ‘On the 
former occasion you asked Me to send them away (xiv. 15; 
Mk. vi. 35; Lk. ix. 12); do not make a similar proposal now.’ 
The disciples reply: ‘ Whence shall one be able to fill these men 
with bread here in a desert place?’ (Mk.); ‘Whence should 
we have so many loaves in a desert place, as to fill so greata 
multitude?’ (Mt.). The pronoun (ἡμῖν) is emphatic, and the 
meaning may be, ‘ /Ve cannot do it, but we know that Thou 
canst.’ See Swete on Mk. and the Westminster Commentary on 
Mt. On the whole, it appears to be better to retain the tradition 
of two separate miracles. 

Both Mt. and Mk. seem to place this second feeding on the 
east side of the lake, whence Christ and the disciples afterwards 
cross to the west side. Mk. says that in order to reach the lake 
from ‘the borders of Tyre and Sidon’ (vii. 24) Jesus passed 
‘through the midst of the borders of Decapolis’ (vii. 31), which 
was on the east side. In this eastern part the majority of the 
population were Gentiles; and perhaps Mt. is intimating that 
there were many Gentiles among the large multitudes who 
brought people to be healed (30), when he says that ‘they 
glorified the God of Zsrael.’1 The wonder of the crowd at these 
mighty works would be greater on the east side of the lake, for 
the population there had had little experience of Christ’s 


1 Comp. πάντες οἱ λαοὶ δοξάσουσι τὸν Κύριον els αἰῶνας (Judah xxv. 5). 


-- 


220 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XV. 81-89 


miracles. Mk. represents them as being astonished at a single 
miracle (vii. 37). Both Evangelists mention Christ’s statement 
that the multitude ‘continue with Me now three days and have 
nothing to eat.’ Mk. with his single miracle gives no explanation 
as to why the people remained with Christ for three days; but 
the numerous healings mentioned by Mt. are a complete ex- 
planation. Neither Gospel says anything about His teaching 
the people; the numbers of sick and infirm folk occupied all 
His time. The people of Decapolis had long since known of 
His fame (iv. 25, viil. 28-34), and both Jews and heathen 
would flock to the great Healer. We may notice how Mt. once 
more insists, more than Mk. does, on the greatness of the 
miracle. Mk. has: ‘they did eat and were filled . . . seven 
baskets . . . about four thousand.’ Mt. has: ‘they did αἱ eat 
and were filled . . . seven baskets fu// . . . four thousand men, 
beside women and children.) 


Both as regards ‘ Magadan’ (39) and ‘ Dalmanutha’ (Mk. viii. 10) there 
is uncertainty of reading. Here ‘ Magadan’ (δὲ B Ὁ supported by Syrr. and 
Latt.) is the older reading ; but no such place is known, for which reason 
‘ Magdala’ may have been substituted in later texts. “ Dalmanutha’ is also 
unknown ; and, although it is the best attested reading, it is probably corrupt. 
‘Magdalutha’ may be the original reading in Mk. Unfamiliar names are 
specially liable to become changed inadvertently in oral tradition, and to be 
corrected by copyists. If ‘ Magdalutha’ were the original name, this might 
be corrupted into ‘ Dalmanutha’ or corrected to the more familiar ‘ Magdala’ ; 
this again might by accident be corrupted into ‘ Magadan,’ and ‘ Magadan’ 
be corrected once more to ‘ Magdala.’ See Hastings’ DZ., art. ‘ Magadan’ ; 
Encyc. Bibl. 985, 1635, 2894; Dalman, Words, p. 66. 

Characteristic expressions in ch. xv.: τότε (1, 12, 28), προσέρχεσθαι 
(1, 12, 23, 30), ὑποκριτής (7), ἐκεῖθεν (21, 29), ἀναχωρεῖν (21), καὶ ἰδού (22), 
ὅρια (22, 39), vids Δαυείδ (22), προσκυνεῖν (25), γενηθήτω (28), dpa ἐκείνη (28). 
Peculiar: ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος (13), Wevdouaprupla (19 and xxvi. 59 only), 
ἀκμήν (16 only) ; none of these are found in the LXX.: φυτεία (13) occurs in 
the LXX., but nowhere else in the N.T. 


Note that in ver. 32 Mt. does not improve Mk.’s difficult 
construction, ἡμέραι τρεῖς προσμένουσίν μοι καὶ οὐκ ἔχουσιν τί 
φάγωσιν. No two writers would independently express them- 
selves in this way, and it is not certain how we are intended 
to construe it. The reading ἡμέρας (s) is a manifest correc- 
tion. Perhaps the best way is to regard προσμένουσιν and 
ἔχουσιν as participles in the dat. plur. with εἰσίν understood ; 
‘they have three days in their waiting on Me and _ having 
no food.’ D has ἡμέραι γ εἰσίν καὶ προσμένουσίν μοι κ.τ.λ., 
which again is a correction, and it differs from the correction in 
Mk. viii. 2. 


1 Comp. the insertion of ἄρτοι τοσοῦτοι and ὄχλον τοσοῦτον in ver. 33- 


XVI. 1-4] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 221 


XVI. 1-12. Renewed Conflict with the Pharisees. 


The appearance of Pharisees and Sadducees is conclusive 
against Magadan and Dalmanutha being on the east side of the 
lake, a semi-heathen territory into which they would not have 
cared to enter. The conjunction of Pharisees with their detested 
opponents, the Sadducees, is even more significant than their 
conjunction with Herodians (see on xii. 14): a common enmity 
has united traditional foes.1 It was Scribes and Pharisees who 
on a previous occasion (xii. 38) asked fora sign. Lk. xi. 16, 29, 
30 is less definite and in a different connexion, but in the main 
is parallel with this and Mk. vill. 11-13. Mk. does not mention 
the Sadducees, and Lk. does not mention the Pharisees. The 
demand in all three is said to have been made witha sinister aim, 
‘tempting Him,’ and to have been for ‘a sign from heaven.’? 
This would mean a voice from the sky, or some of those signs 
which He Himself a little later said would precede the Coming 
of the Son of Man (xxiv. 29-31). The special point here is that 
Christ’s healings were signs on eav/Z and not decisive: comp. 
Lk. xxi. 11; Acts il. 19. They professed to wish to be convinced 
of His Messiahship; they hoped that He would be unable to 
give the required sign, and would thus be discredited with the 
people. Mk. says that in answering them ‘He sighed deeply in 
His Spirit,’ an indication of human emotion which Mt., as usual, 
omits: comp. xv. 29, 30 with Mk. vii. 33, 34. Mk. has no 
parallel to the words about the weather (2, 3). Lk. omits them 
also, but has a similar saying xil. 54-56. ‘There, as here, the 
word for ‘time’ is not χρόνος, but καιρός, ‘right time’ or 
‘season.’ 

The saying cannot be genuine here, for it is absent from δὲ ΒΨ XT and 
most MSS. known to Jerome, from Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur. Arm. and from Origen. 
No reason for omitting it is evident. But it must have been inserted here 


early (CDGL, Latt. Syr-Pesh. Boh.) and may preserve a true saying of 
Christ’s. See small print at the end of this chapter. 


In Christ’s refusing any sign other than Jonah, the wording 
differs from Mk. and is exactly the same as in xil. 39, excepting 
that Jonah is not here called ‘the Prophet.’ By ‘ He left them 
and departed’ Mt. and Mk. indicate that these Pharisees were 
incorrigible ; the Lord did not stay to argue further with them. 

But Mt. (5-12) and Mk. (viii. 14-21) differ as to the place 
in which what follows was spoken. Mk. represents the discovery 


1 Mt. alone couples Pharisees with Sadducees, and he does so six times. 
Mk. and Lk. mention the Sadducees only once, Jn. not at all. The Pharisees 
were influential with the people, the Sadducees with the upper classes: u¢ 
hodie turba in superstitionem, prudentes in atheismum procliviores. 

2 Mk, has ‘ from’ (ἀπό), Mt. and Lk. have ‘ out of’ (ἐκ) heaven, 


222 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ XVI. 12 


of the want of bread as being made during the crossing of the 
lake. Mt. places it after they had crossed, and apparently the 
forgetfulness was not exhibited till they had crossed. Again, 
they differ as to Christ’s warning. In Mk. it is against ‘the 
leaven of the Pharisees and the leaven of Herod.’ In Mt. it is 
against ‘the leaven of the Pharisees and Sadducees.’ Mt. tells 
us that this ‘leaven’ meant ‘doctrine’ (12).!_ That can hardly 
be the meaning in Mk., for Herod had no doctrine. Lk. tells 
us that the leaven of the Pharisees was ‘hypocrisy’ (xii. 1). We 
may suppose that our Lord’s metaphor was, from the first, 
differently interpreted. In each case it meant an evil influence, 
whether by teaching or example. Both Mt. and Mk. state that 
Christ ‘ became aware’ (γνούς) of His disciples’ reasoning respect- 
ing their forgetfulness, and Mt. again (viii. 26) inserts ‘O ye of 
little faith’ as equivalent to the part of Christ’s rebuke which he 
omits: ‘have ye your heart hardened? MHaving eyes, see ye 
not? and having ears, hear ye not?’ In omitting these severe 
words, which are similar to those in which He condemns the 
callous hearers (xiii. 13), and also in omitting the vepeated rebuke 
(Mk. viii. 21), Mt. once more spares the Twelve. He does so 
again in mentioning (12), as Mk. does not, that at last the 
disciples did understand that Christ’s warning about ‘leaven’ was 
a parable, and had nothing to do with their being short of bread.? 
He was not telling them to treat the bread of Pharisees and 
Sadducees as if it was heathen bread, which would pollute them. 
But their spiritual blindness was not confined to this miscompre- 
hension. After the miraculous feeding of the multitudes, the 
Twelve ought to have had no anxiety about bread so long as He 
was with them. Comp. Oxyrhynchus Logia, 3. 

The extraordinary dullness of the Twelve, which seems to 
have surprised Christ Himself (‘Do ye not yet perceive? .. . 
How is it that ye do not perceive?’) shows how slowly the 
education of even the most intimate disciples was progressing. 
It shows also how natural it was that Christ should desire to be 
freed from both the persecution of His enemies and the pursuit 
of the multitudes clamouring to be healed. He had made one 
excursion to the north, into the parts of Tyre and Sidon, with a 
view to obtaining more quiet and freedom for the training of the 
Twelve; but the great faith and persistent entreaty of the 
Canaanitish woman had obtained from Him a work of healing 
which, as soon as it became known, would have produced a 


1The doctrine of the Sadducees was very different from that of the 
Pharisees, and yet there is no repetition of ‘the leaven.? The wording in 
Mk. is more likely to be original. 

* Mt. has a similar statement, not found in the other Gospels, xvii. 13. 
Here he smooths Mk.’s unusual construction, ‘I broke the 5 loaves zo (eis) 
the 5000,’ into ‘ the 5 loaves of the 5000.’ 


ΧΥΙ. 18] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 223 


crowd of similar applicants, had He remained in the neighbour- 
hood. He had returned to the less populous side of the lake 
of Gennesaret, and there again He had been interrupted. For 
three days He could do nothing but heal. He crossed to the 
west shore, and- there His enemies again assailed Him. By 
crossing once more He avoids being followed; and now He 
again leaves the lake and moves northward, not as before to the 
heathen territory of the Phoenician sea-coast, but to the northern 
extremity of Palestine by the sources of the Jordan near the foot 
of Mount Hermon; and at last He and His disciples are in 
retirement for a while. 


XVI. 13-22. The Confession of Peter and the 
Promise to Peter. 


We are not told where our Lord and the Twelve landed, but 
it was probably on the east side of the mouth of the Jordan, for 
immediately afterwards Mk. narrates the healing of a blind man 
at Bethsaida Julias (vili. 22-26). Mt. omits this cure, as he 
omits that of the deaf stammerer (Mk. vii. 32-35), possibly 
because of the means used, and because in this case the cure 
was at first incomplete. Mt. prefers miracles in which the 
Messiah heals instantly with a word. The two miracles thus 
omitted by Mt. are recorded by Mk. alone, and they have 
common characteristics. In both our Lord uses spittle and 
touch, in order to aid the man’s faith. Both miracles were 
wrought when Christ was seeking retirement,! and in both cases 
He takes the man aside from the people, and the cure is 
wrought privately, so as to avoid notoriety and subsequent inter- 
ruption. See Gould, pp. 138, 149-151. In moving north, 
places where He had previously been seem to have been avoided. 
The distance from the lake to Czsarea Philippi is about 
25 miles, and involves an ascent of 1700 feet. The population 
would be mainly Gentile, and it is manifest that Jesus was not 
seeking a field for preaching, but a quiet opportunity for private 
instruction of the Apostles, especially with a view to His 
approaching sufferings and death. 

Peter’s great confession is in all three Gospels, for Lk. now 
once more comes into line; but the promise to Peter is in Mt. 
alone, who here again shows his special interest in the first of the 

1 He was probably seeking seclusion in preparation for His Passion and 
Death. But He seems also to have been avoiding His foes, because His 
hour was not yet come. ‘‘ The parts that are avoided are the dominions of 
Antipas” (Burkitt, 716 Gospel History and its Transmission, p. 93). The 
indications of locality in this and subsequent sections should be noted: 
Cesarea Philippi (xvi. 13); Galilee (xvii. 22, 24); the borders of Judaa 
beyond Jordan (xix, 1); on the way to Jerusalem (xx. 17). 


224. GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW (XVI. 13 


Apostles. Mt. probably regarded Peter’s confession and _ its 
reward as a contrast to the Pharisees’ demand for a sign and 
Christ’s stern refusal. The one was as strong a mark of belief 
as the other of unbelief, and the wish to place the two side by 
side may have had something to do with Mt.’s omission of the 
healing of the blind man. 

In Lk. the definiteness of locality is blurred,! but both Mt. 
and Mk. take us to the ‘ parts’ or ‘villages’ of Czesarea Philippi, 
and the mention of a place so far away from Christ’s usual 
centres of work is a strong authenticating fact. No baseless 
tradition or deliberate invention would have placed the scene of 
what follows in so distant a region. Since the attempt to make 
Him king, Jesus has been changing His method from one of 
public teaching, and public activity in works of mercy, to a more 
secluded course of instruction concentrated on the Twelve. The 
incident at Ceesarea Philippi marks a crisis in the new method, 
but only a preparatory one. The leading thought in the training 
of the Apostles is not Peter’s confession that Jesus is the Messiah, 
nor Christ’s promise of the keys to him, but Christ’s prediction 
of the death which awaits Himself and of His subsequent 
triumph over death. 

It was at the northern extremity of the tetrarchy of Philip, 
close to the frontier which separated Judaism from heathendom, 
and where the Gentile was already more common than the Jew, 
that Jesus questioned the Twelve as to what men thought of 
Him and what their own convictions were. As Bethsaida had 
been renamed Julias after the infamous and only child of 
Augustus, so Paneas had been renamed Cesarea after Augustus 
himself. The name Paneas came from the grotto of Pan, which 
represented the elemental worship of the old inhabitants, close 
to which Herod the Great had built a temple in honour of the 
Emperor (Jos. Amz. xv. x. 3; B./. 1. xxi. 3); and this represented 
the most modern of heathen cults. Thus, just where Judaism 
touched both the worship of nature and the worship of man, 
Jesus called upon His disciples to answer for mankind and for 
themselves as to what His claims upon the conscience were as 
against the claims of these conflicting worships. See Liddon, 
Bampton Lectures, i. sub init.; Stanley, Sinat and Palestine, 
p. 397 - DCG. 1. 246. 

The wording of the first question varies in the three Gospels, 
and in Mt. the reading is not quite certain. Mk. has: ‘“ Who 


1Lk. substitutes another important fact, that it was just after He had 
been praying alone that He put these questions to the disciples and then 
revealed to them the approach of His Passion. As He had prayed before He 
chose them, so He prayed before subjecting them to this trial (Lk. vi. 12, ix. 
18). To Lk. the prayer might seem more important thap the place, 

2 The imperfect (13) implies repeated questioning. 


Aa. 


XVI. 13-15] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 225 


do men say that lam?’ Lk. has: “Who do the multitudes say 
that lam?’ Mt. has either: ‘Who do men say that the Son of 
Man is?’ (δ Β and most versions), or: “ Who do men say that 
I, the Son of Man, am?’ (DGLetce.). The latter reading is not 
likely to be right, for nowhere in the Synoptic Gospels does ‘ Son 
of Man’ occur in apposition to the personal pronoun. It seems 
probable that the expression ‘Son of Man’ was not used on this 
occasion, but that Mt. put it instead of the ‘I’ in Mk., in order 
to make an antithesis between ‘men’ and ‘the Son of Man.’ 
See Dalman, Words, pp. 252, 259. Perhaps also Mt. wished to 
anticipate by contrast Peter’s declaration that He was ‘the Son 
of God’ (16). 

It is possible that this first question was educational in order 
to lead on to the crucial question which follows. But it is also 
possible that our Lord was asking for information. His disciples 
would hear what was said of Him much more often than He 
Himself did, and they would not be likely to repeat to Him 
views about Himself which they regarded as inadequate or 
absurd. This was a case in which He could obtain the informa- 
tion in the ordinary way by asking for it, and therefore would 
not use supernatural means of knowing. 

That the people said He was Jeremiah is stated by Mt. 
alone. Jeremiah, though not much esteemed during his life, 
came to be regarded as one of the greatest of Prophets. He 
was spoken of as ‘the Prophet,’ and may be ‘the Prophet’ of 
Jn. 1. 21.1. Judas Maccabeeus, before his battle with Nicanor, 
sees in a vision a man ‘of exceeding glory, and wonderful and 
most majestic was the dignity around him,’ and this was ‘he 
who prayeth much for the people and the holy city, Jeremiah 
the Prophet of God’ (2 Mac. xv. 13, 14). And Jeremiah gives 
him a sword of gold, wherewith to smite down the adversaries. 
Comp. ‘Fear not, saith the Lord. For thy help will I send 
My servants Isaiah and Jeremiah’ (2 Esdr. ii. 17, 18). 
Evidently there was a belief that Jeremiah was to come again. 
See Plumptre in Smith’s DB., 1st ed. i. p. 971; Streane, 
Jeremiah in Camb, Bible, Appendix. 

The second question is identical in all three Gospels: ‘ But 
ye, who say ye that I am?’ ‘There is strong emphasis on the 
first ‘ ye,’ as meaning those who had been His intimate disciples 
and knew Him so much better than the outside crowd. Had 
they no better or more certain ideas respecting Him than these 
wild and fluctuating guesses? ‘Have I been so long time with 


1 In Hebrew tradition and in many Hebrew MSS. the order of the great 
Prophets is Jeremiah, Ezekiel, Isaiah (Ryle, Canon of the O.7. p. 226). 
Mt. is the only N.T. writer who mentions Jeremiah (ii, 17, xvi, 14, 
xxvii. 9), once by mistake. 


15 


226 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [ΧΥ͂Ι. 16 


you, and dost thou not know Me?’ (Jn. xiv. 9). Here again 
Christ may be asking for information. He could read their 
hearts, but He prefers to learn their convictions from their own 
mouth. The joy with which He welcomes Peter’s answer is to 
be noted. While the rest of His hearers had ceased to think of 
Him as the Messiah, the Twelve were strengthened in their 
belief that He was the Christ. This was the crisis. 

The wording of the answer differs in each Gospel. ‘Thou 
art the Christ’ (Mk.). ‘Thou art the Christ, the Son of the 
living God’ (Mt.).! ‘The Christ of God’ (Lk.). Mt. expands 
Peter’s momentous answer, as he expands Christ’s first question, 
and the two expansions correspond. ‘I’ is expanded into ‘the 
Son of Man’ in the one case, and ‘the Christ’ into ‘the Son of 
the living God’ in the other. But there is no difference in 
meaning between the three reports of the reply; and in all it 
is the impulsive Peter who gives it as the belief of all the Twelve. 
See Dalman, Words, p. 288. 

It was not the first time that Peter had expressed this belief. 
He had accepted it when his brother Andrew said to him, ‘We 
have found the Messiah’; and Philip had repeated this con- 
viction to Nathanael (Jn. i. 41, 45). Peter himself had more 
recently declared: ‘We have believed and know that Thou art 
the Holy One of God’ (Jn. vi. 69). In the first instance he 
did no more than assent to the belief that Jesus would prove 
to be the Messiah for whom all were longing. Months of living 
with Jesus, listening to His teaching and seeing His mighty 
works, and then consciousness of the power, derived from Him, 
of doing mighty works himself, had enlarged his knowledge of 
Him and deepened his love for Him, although He was not 
proving to be the kind of Messiah that they had expected. 
Finally, the feeding of the multitudes and the walking on the 
sea—miracles of a different kind from the numerous works of 
healing—had strengthened still further the early impression and 
the later conviction. Jesus might shun popular enthusiasm and 
refuse to be made a king, but Peter knew that he could say 
from the bottom of his heart, for himself and for them all, 
‘Thou art the Christ.’ Even now, however, Peter’s conception 
of the Christ is very defective, as what follows proves. The 
truth was to be gradually learned by the Twelve, by further 
teaching from Christ, by strange experiences of their own, and 
above all by the gift of the Holy Spirit who was to ‘lead them 
into all the truth.’ 

Mt. here inserts a passage (17-19) which is peculiar to this 
Gospel, and which has provoked volumes of controversy. 
Perhaps it will always continue to be discussed, but those who 


1D has σώζοντος (salvatoris) instead of ζῶντος. 


XVI. 18] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 227 
endeavour to determine its meaning can at least resolve not to 
be influenced by the use which a controversialist may make of 
the conclusion which they eventually reach. Like the other 
passages in which S. Peter is conspicuous (xiv. 28-31, xv. 15), 
it probably belongs to traditions which were current in the 
Church of Jerusalem. But it is possible that there is an 
element, especially as regards the arrangement of the clauses, 
which comes from the Evangelist himself. Perhaps not all of 
the sayings here attributed to Christ were uttered on this 
occasion ; and it is possible that what may have been uttered 
oy Him ina different connexion has not only been transferred 
to this occasion by the Evangelist, but has been expanded by 
him. Where we have the other Gospels to compare with his 
we can see that Mt. has expanded Christ’s first question by 
adding ‘the Son of Man,’ and the disciples’ answer by adding 
‘Jeremiah,’ and Peter’s answer to the second question by adding 
‘the Son of the living God.’ Here we have no other report to 
compare with his, and we are left to conjecture what is possible 
or probable. That the whole of vv. 17-19 is an invention is 
utterly improbable. Christ’s joyous response to Peter’s con- 
fession bears the stamp of originality in every phrase ; and it is 
so entirely in harmony with the context that we may feel 
confident that it was spoken on this occasion. ‘The other two 
verses (18, 19) may have been spoken at some other time or 
times, and the saying about ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ may be 
Mt.’s enlargement of the saying about ‘the keys.’ Moreover, 
both these verses may have been spoken in reference to the 
Twelve,! and Mt. (or the tradition which he is quoting) may 
have adopted the sayings with special reference to S. Peter, 
thinking that, as he made the first glorious confession, so these 
glorious promises, in the first instance, were made to him. See 
Allen’s careful notes, pp. 176-180; Salmon, Zhe Human 
Element, p. 351. 


The comment of Origen (On A/t., Bk. xii. § 11) runs thus: ‘‘ But if you 
suppose that upon that one Peter only the whole Church is built by God, 
what would you say about John, the son of thunder, or each one of the 
Apostles? Shall we dare to say that against Peter in particular the gates of 
Hades shall not prevail, but that they shall prevail against the other 
Apostles? Does not the previous saying, ‘The gates of Hades shall not 
prevail against it,’ hold in regard to all and in the case of each of them? And 
also the saying, ‘ Upon this rock I will build My Church’? Are the keys 
of the Kingdom given by the Lord to Peter only, and will no other of the 
blessed receive them? But if this promise, ‘I will give unto thee the keys 
of the Kingdom of Heaven’ be common to all the others, how shall not all 


1 The saying about binding and loosing was afterwards made to the 
Twelve (xviii. 18), and may have been transferred to 5, Peter in par- 
ticular. 


228 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ΧΥῚ. 17, 18 


the things previously spoken of, and the things which are subjoined as 
having been addressed to Peter, be common to them?” 

In a later passage (Bk. xiii. § 31) Origen reserves a superiority for Peter 
by pointing out that, while what the Apostles bind and loose on earth is 
bound and loosed ‘in heaven’ (ἐν οὐρανῷ, ΧΨΠΙ. 18), what Peter binds and 
looses on earth is bound and loosed ‘in the heavens’ (ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς, xvi. 
19); ‘‘ for it is no small difference that Peter received the keys not of one 
heaven but of more.” It is not likely that there was any difference in the 
words used by Christ. 


But, whatever may be the origin of the passage, we must 
endeavour to explain it as it has come down to us with the 
authority of the First Gospel. 

Nowhere else does Christ call an individual ‘blessed’: 
‘blessed art thou’ (17). It would almost seem as if He had 
asked His searching question with some anxiety, and as if 5. 
Peter’s immediate and decisive reply was a joy that contained 
in it something of relief. Christ’s question here is somewhat 
similar to the earlier and perhaps more wistful question, ‘ Will 
ye also go away?’ Here the full address, giving Peter’s original 
name with that of his father, ‘Simon Bar-Jonah,’ adds solemnity 
to the utterance (comp. Jn. xxi. 15-17); and the Lord 
emphatically declares that this confession of faith in His 
Messiahship is not the outcome of human instruction, but must 
be a revelation from God Himself. This is the first step; the 
Father has revealed to the Apostle that Jesus is the Messiah.! 

The next step is taken by the Messiah Himself. He also 
makes a revelation: ‘And I also say to thee’ (κἀγὼ δέ σοι λέγω). 
This revelation is not respecting His own person, but 
respecting His future work and the relation of the Apostle to 
it (18). The Messiah is going to build His Church, a new 
Israel, for which Peter is to supply the foundation. It is quite 
clear that here Christ Himself is not the foundation-rock or 
foundation-stone. He is the Builder of the edifice, determining 
when, where, and how it shall be raised. He is the source of 
all activity in framing the building. No stress whatever can 
be laid on the change of gender in the Greek: ‘Thou art 
Peter (Πέτρος), and on this rock (πέτρα) will I build My Church.’ 
Our Lord would speak in Aramaic, as ‘ Bar-Jonah’ tends to 
show; and in Aramaic Cefha would be used in both places. 
In Greek it was impossible to have πέτρα in both cases, because 
Peter was a man, and his name must have a masculine termina- 
tion. And πέτρος would not do in both places, because the 


1 Already we have three expressions which point to the Jewish centre in 
which this tradition has been preserved: ‘Simon Bar-Jonah,’ ‘flesh and 
blood,’ and ‘My Father which is in heaven.’ Others of a similar kind 
follow: ‘gates of Hades,’ ‘the keys,’ ‘the Kingdom of the Heavens,’ and 
‘binding and loosing.’ Perhaps even ἐκκλησία is more Jewish than 
Christian, and means the new Israel. 


XVI. 18] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 229 


meaning ‘rock’ was required rather than ‘stone.’ Cefia means 
either ‘rock’ or ‘stone.’ 

The fact that Christ Himself is elsewhere, by a different 
metaphor, called the ‘corner-stone’ (Eph. ii. 20; 1 Pet. ii. 4-8), 
must not lead us to deny that Peter is here the foundation-rock 
or stone. In Eph. ii. 20 the Apostles and Christian Prophets 
are the foundation (θεμέλιος), as Peter is said to be here. The 
first ten chapters of Acts show us in what sense Peter was the 
foundation on which the first stones of the Christian Israel were 
laid. He was the acknowledged Head of the Apostolic body, 
and he took the lead in admitting both Jews and Gentiles into 
the Christian Church. “All attempts to explain the ‘rock’ 
in any other way than as referring to Peter have ignomini- 
ously failed” (Briggs, Worth Amer. Rev., Feb. 1907, p. 348). 
Neither the confession of Peter nor the faith of Peter is an 
adequate explanation. But at the same time it is clear that 
the promise is made to Peter as confessing his fatth, and also as 
confessing it on behalf of the Twelve The Baptist himself 
had had his misgivings about the Messiah. Other disciples 
had ‘gone back and walked no more with Him’ (Jn. vi. 66). 
But here was one who, in spite of his Master’s being so unlike 
the Jewish idea of the Messiah, had enthusiastically recognized 
Him as the Christ, and had acknowledged Him as such on 
behalf of himself and his brother-Apostles. Such a Confessor 
might well be regarded as a foundation. Others confessing the 
same faith would be added (Rev. xxi. 14), and on these the 
superstructure would be raised; but Peter was the first. It is 
with him that the erection of the Christian Church begins. 
See Chase in Hastings’ DA. iii. p. 759; Hort, Zhe Christian 
Ecclesia, pp. 16, 17; Lightfoot, Clement, ii. pp. 481-490; 
J. Arm. Robinson, Zphesians, pp. 68, 69, 163 ; Sanday, Outlines, 
p. 125; B. Weiss, Life of Christ, il. p. 58. Only here and 
xviii. 17 does the word ‘Church’ (ἐκκλησία) occur in the 
Gospels; elsewhere in the N.T. it is very frequent. It means 
a body of men, united by common convictions and aims. 
See Hastings’ D&B. and DCG., art. ‘Church.’ In this organic 
body, considered under the figure of a building, nothing must 
be attributed to S. Peter or to the Twelve which would contra- 
dict 1 Cor. iii. rr. 

In the second part of the saying (18) it may be doubted 
whether the rendering, ‘the gates of Hades shall not prevail 
against it’ gives the exact meaning. Evidently, in contrast to 

1 If the promise had been absolutely personal and individual, we should 


have had ἐπί σοι rather than ἐπὶ ταυτῇ τῇ πέτρᾳ (which seems to mean ‘on 
the sureness of thy faithful heart, to which thy name bears witness,’ rather 
than ‘on thee’). 


230 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XVI. 18, 19 


the Church as a temple built on a rock, Hades or Death 
is thought of as a fortress with strong gates. The common 
rendering implies that there will be conflicts between the two, 
and that whenever they occur, the Church will always in the 
end prevail. However true this may be, it is not a probable 
meaning of the passage. If aggressiveness were the prominent 
idea, we should hardly have the metaphor of a building with 
gates. Gates keep people in and keep people out, and are 
necessary for the strength of a citadel, but they do not fight. 
Here the leading thought is the strength and stability of the 
Church, not its aggressiveness. Death is often regarded as 
one of the strongest of powers ; as, ‘Love is as strong as death’ 
(Cant. viii. 6). And here the Church is said to be still stronger 
than death; not even the gates of Hades shall surpass it in 
strength. “Comp: "Ps. 1x) 13, evil, “185 Job” xxxvino 917’; 
Is. xxxvili. 10; also Hom. J//. v. 646. On the picturesque 
rendering in some Syriac texts, ‘the gate-bars of Sheol,’ see 
Burkitt, Evan. da-Mepharreshe, 11. pp. 119, 156. 

The metaphor abruptly changes (19), but there is clear 
connexion between the one and the other. The figure of two 
buildings, one of which has strong gates, suggests the idea of 
keys. In the O.T. we often have the ‘gates of Hades’ or 
‘gates of death’ (Ps. ix. 13, ον". 18; Job xxxvill. 17; 3 Mac. v. 
51; Wisd. xvi. 13), and in Revelation the risen Lord has ‘the 
keys of Death and of Hades’ (i. 18), ze. He is supreme over 
their citadel, and can admit or release whom He will (iii. 7). 
And if the kingdom of death can be likened to a citadel with 
gates, so also can the Kingdom of Heaven. And here again 
we have a prerogative which might seem to belong to the 
Messiah conferred upon the Apostle. S. Peter was the rock 
on which Christ builds His Church; and now he is the steward 
to whom Christ entrusts the keys of the Kingdom: comp. 
Is. xxii. 22. The precise relation of the Church to the Kingdom 
is not easy to determine; but they are not the same. In this 
Gospel, the Kingdom seems always to mean that which the 
Son of Man is to begin at the Second Advent, which is regarded 
as near. In that case, the Church carries on the work of the 
Forerunner and proclaims that the Kingdom is at hand. In 
this Kingdom the Apostles are to ‘sit on twelve thrones, 
judging the twelve tribes of Israel’ (xix. 28), but of those 
thrones that of S. Peter is to be first. He has been first in 
the confession of the true faith, and he is to be first in holding 
authority in the Kingdom. It is possible that ‘the keys’ 
have special reference to 5. Peter’s function in admitting so 
many of the first converts to the Christian Church, but this 
would be only preliminary to admission to the Kingdom. 


XVI. 19, 20] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 231 


S. Peter is not only the rock to support the Church, and 
the steward to hold the keys of the Kingdom, he is also the 
teacher who can give an authoritative decision. The metaphor 
of ‘binding’ and ‘loosing’ does not here refer to the forgiveness 
of sins. ‘The two words are technical expressions, the meaning 
of which was well understood.! To ‘bind’ is to forbid, to 
‘loose’ is to permit. Just as a Rabbi of great knowledge 
would decide what, according to the provisions of the oral 
Law, was allowed or prohibited, so Peter would decide what, 
according to the teaching of Christ, was permitted or not. In 
this authority the other Apostles were to share (xvili. 18), but 
Peter once more comes first. It is important to notice that it 
is ‘whatsoever thou shalt bind,’ not ‘zomsoever thou shalt 
bind’; and the addition of ‘on earth’ and ‘in heaven’ perhaps 
means no more than that the decision has authority. See 
Dalman, Words, p. 213, for a different view. But, in any case, 
the meaning of Jn. xx. 23 must not be read into this passage, 
as has often been done from Cyprian onwards.?, Nor can we 
assume that what Peter decides for the visible Church is binding 
on the Church invisible ; or that what he decides for the visible 
Church of his day holds good for ever, however much the 
conditions may change; or that his power of prohibiting and 
permitting has passed to his successors. 


XVI. 20-28. Announcement of the Passion and the Rebuke 
to Peter. 


We now return (20) to what is in all three Gospels. All 
three mention that Jesus charged the Twelve not to tell any 
one that He was the Christ; but Mt. alone, as in wv. 12 and 24, 
has his favourite ‘Then’ (τότε. The charge is a strong 
guarantee for the historical character. It is thoroughly intellig- 
ible ; but, at the same time, a writer of fiction would hardly 
have thought that Jesus, after exhibiting such joy when Peter 
confessed that the Twelve believed in Him as the Messiah, 
would insist upon secrecy. The reason for the command to 
keep silence was the erroneous idea about the Messiah which 
prevailed among the people. They might again try to make 
Him a king, and thus might precipitate a collision with the 
Roman government. As yet, even the Twelve knew too little 
about the Messiahship to be able to talk about it with profit 


Comp. xviii. 18. Like ‘the Kingdom of the Heavens,’ they are 
thoroughly Jewish expressions, and are found only in Mt. among the 
Gospels. 

ἊΣ Eccles. Unit. 4, with the famous interpolations. See also Ff. 
Ixxv. 16 (Firmilian to Cyprian). Zahn remarks that this is one of the most 
frequently misunderstood passages in Mt. 


232 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XVI. 21-23 


to the multitude. And so we are told that ‘from that time 
Jesus degan to show unto His disciples,’ or ‘degax to teach 
them’ (Mk.), that the Messiah must suffer before entering 
upon His Kingdom. The ‘began’ is important. We have 
here a summary of what went on for some time, and neither 
Mt. nor Mk. tell us at what point Peter drew upon himself 
Christ’s terrible rebuke. It is commonly assumed that, the 
very first time that our Lord foretold His sufferings and death, 
Peter uttered an emphatic protest, and then ‘Get thee behind 
Me, Satan,’ was uttered. The Gospels neither say nor imply 
this (Lk. is silent about the whole incident); nor is it probable 
in itself. Had the impulsive Peter been surprised into making 
his characteristic protest, he would perhaps have been less 
severely rebuked. ‘The rebuke is much more intelligible, if we 
suppose that Peter had had plenty of time to think over this 
new and amazing teaching respecting the Messiah, and had 
deliberately tried to turn Jesus from His purpose. Mk. tells 
us that Jesus ‘used to speak the saying (about the Passion) 
without reserve’ to all the Twelve (παρρησίᾳ τὸν λόγον ἐλάλει). 
Peter thinks this a great mistake. With something of officious- 
ness, and perhaps as if his age gave him some kind of authority 
even over the Master, he ‘took Him’ as if to save Him from 
Himself (προσλαβόμενος), and began to rebuke Him. 

‘Be it far from Thee, Lord,’ or ‘God be gracious to Thee, 
Lord,’ means ‘Heaven grant Thee something much better than 
that,’ or ‘Heaven forbid that’: comp. 2 Sam. xx. 20, xxiii. 17. 
What follows is very strongly put: ‘This shall zever be unto 
Thee.’? Mk. gives no words. Something may have been pre- 
served by tradition; but perhaps Mt. is merely putting Peter’s 
rebuke into words. Yet, while he is more full than Mk. about 
Peter’s protest, he is less full about the Lord’s turning to reply. 
Mt. omits ‘and seeing His disciples He rebuked.’ The ‘seeing 
His disciples’ seems to imply that Peter was again expressing 
the convictions of the Twelve, and that for the sake of the 
whole body a strong condemnation of this mistaken view re- 
specting His sufferings and death must be uttered. The ‘first’ 
(x. 2) of the Apostles had grievously abused his position in 
rebuking his Master, and all of them must hear how the rebuke 
was reproved. 

‘Thou art a stumbling-block to Me’ is not in Mk., and is 

1 The Sinaitic Syriac has ‘as though he pitied Him,’ or ‘as if to spare 
Him,’ which perhaps implies that Peter took Jesus aside from the others 
before remonstrating with Him. The Arabic Tatian has compatiens. 

2 According to the popular view of the Messiah (which Peter shared), 
rejection and death, so far from being necessary for the Messiah, were 


absolutely impossible ; He was to be welcomed as the Saviour of His people, 
and was to reign over them. 


XVI. 23] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 233 


perhaps Mt.’s interpretation of the startling identification of 
Peter with the evil one; but, even without this addition, ‘Get 
thee behind Me, Satan,’ is indeed severe. It recalls the dismissal 
of the devil at the close of the temptations in the wilderness 
(iv. τοὺ; and it recalls it, because Peter has renewed those 
temptations. Those assaults of the evil one largely consisted 
in trying to induce Jesus to take a short and easy road to the 
Messiah’s throne ; to obtain the power and glory without trouble 
or suffering. Peter is again trying to induce the Messiah to 
evade rejection by the hierarchy! and an ignominious death. 
This conduct shows how necessary was the charge that the 
Apostles should be silent respecting the Messiahship of Jesus. 
If the first of the Apostles could commit so disastrous an error 
as was involved in his rebuke to Christ, what might not the 
ignorant multitude do? Comp. xii. 16, xvii. 9; and see Sanday, 
Jour. of Th. St., April 1904, p. 321. 

Origen (Ox M7, Bk. xii. S§ 21, 22) regards ‘Get thee behind 
Me’ (ὕπαγε ὀπίσω μου) as a gentle rebuke to Peter’s ignorance. 
Peter meant well, but he made a grave mistake. He ought to 
have known that He whom he had recognized as ‘the Son of 
the living God’ (16) can neither say nor do what merits rebuke, 
and that it was presumptuous of one of His followers to rebuke 
Him. Peter had been attempting to lead, and to lead his Leader. 
‘Get thee behind Me’ means that Peter is to go back to his posi- 
tion as a follower. In support of this Origen quotes: ‘Come ye 
behind Me (ὀπίσω pov), and I will make you fishers of men’ 
(iv. 19); and ‘He that doth not take up his cross and follow 
behind Me (ὀπίσω pov), is not worthy of Me’ (x. 38); and he 
compares πορεύεσθε ὀπίσω αὐτοῦ (1 Kings xviii. 21). He also 
remarks that at the Temptation, when the evil one is dismissed, 
there is no ‘behind Me.’? The devil cannot become Christ’s 
follower. 

This explanation is rendered improbable by the ὕπαγε, and 
is excluded by the Σατανᾶ. Had our Lord meant that Peter 
was to resume his place as a disciple, He would have said 
‘Come’ (δεῦρο) rather than ‘Go’ (ὕπαγε); and in urging any 
one to follow Him He would not call him ‘Satan.’ 

But we have not fully explained either Christ’s charge to the 
Twelve to be silent or the severity of His rebuke to Peter, when 
we have shown that Peter’s grievous mistake (which was perhaps 

1 The unusual order, ‘elders, chief priests, and scribes’ is in Mk., and 
is preserved by both Mt. and Lk. But Mt. and Lk. correct Mk.’s ‘after 
three days’ to ‘on the third day.’ Mt. alone has the going to Jerusalem to 
suffer all this. 

*In the true text of Mt. iv. 10 there is no ὀπίσω pov after ὕπαγε, and 


Origen does not seem to know of the insertion, which is found in D and 
some later texts, from xvi. 18. 


234 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW | XVI. 23 


shared by the other Apostles) is a proof that a general proclama- 
tion of Jesus as the Messiah would have been fatal. There is 
also to be considered the effect of Peter’s remonstrance upon 
Christ Himself. In Peter the banished Satan had once more 
returned, and by him the dire temptations to which Jesus had 
been subjected in the wilderness had been renewed. The 
victory over evil which He had won there had to be won over 
again; and He alone knows what the victory in each case cost 
Him. His prayer in Gethsemane, that even then the cup might 
pass from Him, shows what an awful power of attraction the 
suggestion that the end might be gained without suffering, had 
for His human soul. It was this which caused Him to insist 
upon the Twelve being silent to outsiders respecting the fact of 
His being the Messiah, and it was this which caused Him to 
insist upon Peter’s being silent to Him respecting the possibility 
of His obtaining the Crown without any experience of the Cross. 
Neither the multitude by their misdirected enthusiasm, nor the 
Apostle by his misdirected affection, must seduce Him from 
what was decreed by the Divine Will. ‘ He must go to Jerusalem 
and suffer many things.’! Peter’s love for his Master was real, 
but it was exhibited ‘not wisely’; in accordance, not with the 
mind of God, but with the sordid calculations of human affection ; 
and it was therefore a snare rather than a support. 

Peter’s primacy is of a strangely varied character, and it is 
sometimes a primacy of evil rather than of good. If he is first 
in rank, and first in confession of faith, he is also first in tempting, 
and first in denying, his Master. The rock of foundation almost 
at once becomes a rock of offence, and that, not to the Church, 
but to its very Builder. 

Like the time when He became conscious that He was the 
Messiah, the time when Jesus became conscious that He must 
suffer many things and be killed, is hidden from us. We have 
no right to assume (see Jn. iii. 14) that He had only just become 
aware of it, when He revealed the fact to His disciples. On the 
other hand, we need not suppose that He had known it from 
His childhood. We may reverently believe that even He re- 
quired to be trained for such a future, and that perhaps not 
until His Baptism, and then only gradually, was the will of God, 
in this respect, revealed to Him. A childhood overshadowed 
by the prospect of sufferings from which even His ripe manhood 
shrank, would indeed be a mystery. 


1 For the first time this ‘must’ (δεῖ) of the Divine decrees respecting the 
Messiah is used in this Gospel, in which it is not frequent ; comp. xxvi. 54. 
It is specially common in Lk. (ii. 49, iv. 43, ix. 22, xiii. 33, xvii. 25, xix. 5, 
Xxli. 37, xxiv. 7, 26, 44: comp. Acts iii. 21, xvii. 3; 1 Cor. xv. 25). And, 
before this, Christ had intimated that death, and even death by crucifixion, 
was included in the ‘must’ (Jn. ii. 19, iii. 14). 


‘ 
i 
; 
ἱ 
Ι 
{ 


XVI. 24,25] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 235 


According to Mt. the exhortation which follows the rebuke 
to Peter (24-27) was a continuation of the training of the 
Twelve; but Mk. (viii. 34) lets us know that even in this 
remote region Jesus was sufficiently known for a multitude 
to be collected round Him, and that He called them to Him 
and addressed them along with His disciples. Although the 
multitude might not be told that He was the Messiah, and 
although even the Twelve could scarcely bear to be told that 
the Messiah, the Author of their salvation, must be made 
perfect by sufferings (Heb. ii. 10), yet all needed to be taught 
that they themselves require suffering for their perfecting, and 
must be prepared for it and willing to endure it. He who 
would ‘Come after’ Christ, ze. become His disciple, must 
be ready for three things, self-denial,! cross-bearing, and loyal 
obedience. The startling metaphor of bearing the cross has 
been mentioned before (x. 38), but to many of Christ’s hearers 
it would be new. It shows once more that He desired no half- 
hearted disciples, and that He did not wish candidates for the 
Kingdom to be under any illusions as to the kind of life that 
was required. If Peter had known more of what was necessary 
for himself he would not have had so violent a repugnance to 
the thought of the Messiah being required to suffer. 

It is the common belief of mankind that he is happiest who 
possesses most; and apparently no amount of experience can 
uproot this delusion. But (25) he is happiest who is himself a 
possession, possessed by Christ, and ready to sacrifice every- 
thing, even life itself, for Ais sake. The greatest of all earthly 
possessions is nothing, unless there is some one to enjoy it. 
When the possessor perishes, what is the worth of the possession ? 
And what is there that he could give to place himself in pos- 
session again? Christianity and the highest forms of moral 
philosophy are agreed that the claims of self-interest are best 
met by self-sacrifice, and that consciously to make one’s own 
happiness one’s aim is a sure way to lose it. 

Sayings such as these (24-26) were evidently uttered more 


_ “Τὸ deny himself’ is more than what we mean by ‘self-denial’; it 
means to refuse to make one’s own pleasure the aim of life, and one’s own 
will the law of life. For these are substituted the well-being of others and 
the Will of God. 

* This is crucial ; to lose one’s life, and sacrifice all its powers and possi- 
bilities, for a wrong reason, is to lose it indeed. Comp. ‘‘ For what then 
have men lost their life, or for what have those who were on the earth ex- 
changed their soul?” (Apocalypse of Baruch, li. 15). Here the ἀντάλλαγμα 
is given, not received ; so the meaning may be, ‘ What shall a man pay to get 
back his life, after he has forfeited it by sinning to make gain?’ So Tyndale, 
Cranmer, and the Genevan Version: ‘ What shall a man give to redeem his 
soul again?’ Comp. Hom. //. ix. 401-409. Lk. has ἑαυτὸν (for τ. ψυχὴν 
αὐτοῦ) ζημιῳθείς. 


236 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XVI. 27, 28 


than once by our Lord, and perhaps were frequently repeated 
by Him. Mt. gives them twice, at the mission of the Twelve 
(x. 37-39) and here. Lk. gives them thrice; here (ix. 23), 
XIV. 25-27, and xvil. 33, the last being very different in wording ; 
Mk. (vill. 34-37) and Jn. (xii. 25) each of them once. Here 
in all three Gospels a reason is given for the declaration of 
these severe conditions of discipleship; ‘/7or the Son of Man 
shall come in the glory of His Father with His Angels.’ Here 
Mt. omits that at the Coming the Son of Man will be ashamed 
of whoever has been ashamed of Him, for he has already re- 
corded similar words at x. 32, 33; but he adds here: ‘and then 
shall He render to each man according to his conduct’ (κατὰ τὴν 
πρᾶξιν αὐτοῦ), a phrase which does not occur elsewhere in the 
N.T. We may perhaps assume that the words which Mt. omits 
were spoken twice;- and S. Paul perhaps alludes to them in 
‘If we shall deny Him, He also will deny us’ (2 Tim. ii. 12). 
We are not quite sure whether the concluding verse (28) was 
spoken at the same time as what precedes. Neither Mt. nor 
Lk. indicate any interval. Mk. introduces the words with a 
fresh ‘And He was saying to them’ (καὶ ἔλεγεν αὐτοῖς), which 
may or may not intimate that there was an interval. It cannot, 
however, have been long, and the question is not of importance. 
The important point is the very marked difference between Mt. 
and the other two as to the last clause of this saying. Mk. and 
Lk. have: ‘till they see the Kingdom of God,’ which may refer to 
the Transfiguration regarded as a foretaste of Christ’s glory in 
the future Kingdom. Mt. has: ‘till they see the Son of Man 
coming in His Kingdom,’ which hardly admits of any other 
interpretation than the Second Advent. And yet none of those 
present lived to witness the Second Advent. No difference of 
translation of the same Aramaic original will help us here. If 
Christ uttered what Mk. reports, then Mt. misrepresents the 
saying, and wie versa. There can be little doubt that Mk.’s is 
the earliest report, and the closest to what was actually said. 
Mt. and Lk. have both of them used Mk., Lk. following him 
almost exactly, while Mt. substitutes a phrase which he believed 
to be equivalent in meaning. At the time when Mt. wrote, it 
was commonly believed that most of those who were then alive 
would live to see the Second Advent (1 Thes. iv. 15), and some 
of the Twelve were then alive. Mt. believed that ‘till they see 
the Kingdom of God come with power’ meant ‘till they see the 


1 All three here have ‘the Father’ of God, a usage which is far more 
common (45 times) in Mt. than in Lk. (17 times) or Mk. (5 times). All 
three also add ‘the Angels’ to ‘the glory of the Father.’ We can hardly 
doubt that Christ mentioned them in this connexion. Would He have done 
so, if they do not exist? It would have sufficed to say ‘in the glory of the 
Father.’ See on xiii. 49 and xxviii. 2. 


XVI. 28] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 237 


Son of Man coming in His Kingdom,’ and he therefore 
substituted a clear expression for the less clear phrase in Mk.! 
Comp. x. 23 and xxiv. 34. These three passages show that the 
First Gospel was written before the belief that Christ would 
return soon had been extinguished. They would not have been 
left standing as they are, after experience had proved that the 
predictions had not been fulfilled. It is, however, a rash 
inference to draw from them that Christ uttered predictions 
which were untrue. The comparison which has just been made 
between Mk.’s wording and that of Mt. shows what the right 
inference is. Christ’s words were from the first misunderstood. 
An interpretation which was perhaps verbally possible, but which 
was erroneous, was put upon them; and then His words were 
altered so as to express this misinterpretation. All this was done 
quite innocently. The Evangelists, or the sources which they 
used, simply endeavoured to give in plain language the meaning 
of what Jesus was believed to have said. The theory that in the 
Gospels we have a literal translation into Greek of the very 
words which our Lord used cannot be maintained in the face of 
the facts which confront us again and again. Yet another 
possibility must be borne in mind,—that these passages are 
highly metaphorical, and that ze misinterpret them in applying 
them to the Second Advent.? 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xvi.: προσέρχεσθαι (1), Σαδδουκαῖοι 
(1, 6, 11, 12), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (17), ἀπὸ τότε (21), τότε (24). 
Peculiar: Ἰερεμίας (14), ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (19). In the interpolation 
(2, 3) we have εὐδία and πυρράζειν. The latter word is late Greek, but 
πυρρίζειν is found in the LXX. 

The interpolation about the weather is found in the newly discovered 
uncial which has been acquired by Mr. Freer of Detroit, and is pronounced 
by experts to be of the fifth, or possibly of the fourth century. See above on 
the interpolated doxology after the Lord’s Prayer (vi. 13), which is also 
contained in this MS. It also contains the insertion at Lk. vi. 5, hitherto 
known only from Codex Bezz. On the other hand, it omits Lk. xxii. 43, 
44, xxiii. 34; Jn. v. 4, vii. 53-viii. 11. See Burkitt, Zvangelion da-Me- 
pharreshe, li. p. 192. 


1 Zahn’s suggestion that Mt. preserves the original form of the saying, 
and that ΜΙ. ἀπά Lk. have altered it, is much less probable. Mk. must 
have been written while the belief in Christ’s speedy return was still 
prevalent ; and in that case there would have been no temptation to alter 
Mt.’s wording of the saying. Moreover, all the way through we can see that 
it is Mt. who uses Mk., not Mk. who uses Mt. 

3 “* His words are generally so interpreted (of His personal visible return), 
and this seems at first their obvious meaning. Yet it is doubtful whether all 
the language which is so interpreted is not better understood as oriental 
imagery describing the accompaniments of His coming in the conversion of 
multitudes to faith in Him, and in the downfall of Judaism as the representa- 
tive of true religion ” (Burton and Mathews). 


238 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XVII. 1-18 


XVII. 1-13. The Transfiguration. 


The historical character of this mysterious event is guaranteed 
(1) by the zmprobability of invention, for there had been nothing 
in Christ’s previous life to make an appearance of Moses and 
Elijah probable, and there is nothing like it in the O.T., the 
glorification of Moses at Sinai being very different; (2) by its 
intrinsic saztability to the crisis in the Ministry which has just 
been reached; (3) by the ¢estimony of all three Synoptists; and 
(4) by the remarkable zxjunction to silence (see above on xvi. 20). 
Whatever date we assign to 2 Peter, the allusion to the Trans- 
figuration (2 Pet. i. 16-18) is evidence of what was believed at 
that date respecting the incident, and is so far a confirmation of 
it. 

The three accounts are harmonious as to main facts, although 
each narrative contains details which are not in the others. 
Both Mt. and Lk. used Mk., and it is possible that Mt. had no 
other authority. But it is also possible that he had information 
which was not used by Mk., and it is probable that Lk. had 
some other source or sources. Lk. is much more independent 
of Mk. than Mt. is. The changes which Mt. makes in Mk.’s 
narrative may be purely editorial. He alone mentions that the 
disciples fell on their faces when they heard the voice from 
heaven, and that Jesus came and touched them and said, ‘ Arise, 
and be not afraid.’ Mt.’s omissions may be safely regarded as 
editorial. With his usual tenderness for the Twelve, he omits 
that Peter ‘wist not what to answer,’ and that all three 
‘questioned what the rising again from the dead should mean.’ 
In a similar spirit he adds, ‘Then understood the disciples that 
He spake unto them of John the Baptist’ (13). The addition, 
‘in whom I am well pleased’ (5), brings the wording of the voice 
into harmony with that at the Baptism. But Lk.’s wording, 
except of Peter’s exclamation and of the voice from heaven, is 
mainly his own; and his great additions to the narrative are (2) 
that Christ ‘was praying’ when He was glorified in appearance, 
(2) that Moses and Elijah ‘spoke of His exodus which He was 
about to accomplish at Jerusalem,’ and (c) that the disciples 
were ‘heavy with sleep.’ Lk. may be dating from a different 
point when he says ‘about eight days’ instead of ‘six days,’ or 
both expressions may mean a week. ‘The mention of a week’s 
interval, which has no special point, is a mark of historical truth. 
Nearly all modern travellers and commentators are agreed that 
the ‘high mountain’ is Hermon, not ‘Tabor.! 


1 In the Greek Church the Feast of the Transfiguration is still sometimes 
called τὸ Θαβώριον : Hauck, Real-Encycl, xix. p. 580; Herzog and Plitt, 
XV. p. 362; Schaff-Herzog, iv. p. 2382. 


XVII. 1-8] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 230 


It is impossible for us to determine what the experiences of 
the three disciples were. The manner of the manifestation 
eludes us. Christ Himself calls it a ‘vision’ (ὅραμα, ver. 9), 
which does not mean that it was unreal (Acts vii. 31, ix. 10, 
xvi. 9, 10, xviii. 9). It was no optical delusion, but an appear- 
ance granted to three persons simultaneously. They were 
convinced that they had seen the glorified representatives of the 
Law and the Prophets conversing with the glorified Christ ; and, 
although it is lawful to conjecture how this conviction was 
produced, no conjecture can be affirmed with certainty. Their 
fear is in all three accounts; in Mk. after the appearance of 
Moses and Elijah; in Lk. after the cloud and before the voice ; 
in Mt. after both cloud and voice. Mt. alone calls the cloud 
‘bright’ (@wrewy), which Origen explains as the glory of the 
Trinity: comp. 2 Pet. i. 17. 

It is wiser to seek for the meaning of the event than to frame 
guesses as to the manner of it. It must have had a meaning for 
the disciples, and perhaps we may venture to say that it must 
have had a meaning for Christ Himself. To the disciples, who 
had been so amazed at the doctrine that the Messiah must suffer 
and die, it would be a great consolation. Peter’s exclamation 
seems to imply deep contentment, which he wishes to prolong ; 
and there may have been a desire to continue a time of peace 
and beauty, and to postpone indefinitely the return to danger 
and work. ‘The Transfiguration taught all three that the Passion 
of the Messiah did not mean that the glory of the Kingdom 
would be lost; but the glory would be, not of earth, but of 
heaven. Although the Messiah was to be rejected by His own 
people, He was not rejected by God: He was still the Divine 
Son, in whom the Father declared Himself to be well pleased. 
The Law and the Prophets had spoken of Him and prepared 
the way for Him, even as regards His humiliation and_ brief 
acquaintance with the grave; but they were now superseded by 
Him. Moses and Elijah disappear, ‘Jesus alone’ abides, and 
they are to listen to Him. ‘ Hear ye Him,’ which distinguishes 
this voice from that at the Baptism, is in all three Gospels. See 
on ili. 17, and Hastings’ DB. iv., art. ‘Transfiguration’; Bruce, 
The Training of the Twelve, pp. 188-191. 

Jesus Himself would rejoice at this confirmation of the 
disciples’ belief in Him. They now knew on additional authority 
of the highest order that the Messiah must pass through death 
to glory, and hereafter this lesson would come home to them.! 
But at this crisis in His ministry He Himself may have been in 


? Yet it is to be noted that His ‘ exodus’ or ‘departure’ is spoken of as 
an achievement which He is ‘about to accomplish,’ rather than as a fate 
which He cannot escape (Lk. ix. 31). 


240 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ XVII. 9-13 


need of comfort. The grievous temptations of the devil in the 
wilderness had just been renewed by His own Apostle. During 
these last months of His earthly career the shadow of the Cross 
was falling on Him more and more, and He may have needed 
this foretaste of His glory to help Him to endure the foretaste 
of His sufferings. He accepted the strengthening of an Angel 
in the garden; and He may have accepted similar strengthening 
on the mount. 

Lk. tells us that the descent from the mountain took place 
‘on the next day,’ which probably means that the Transfiguration 
took place at night.!_ He omits the question about Elijah, which 
would not interest Gentile readers. It perhaps implies that the 
Scribes had used this argument against the suggestion that Jesus 
might be the Messiah: ‘How can He be the Messiah, when 
Elijah, who is to precede the Messiah, is not yet come?” Mt. 
alone states that John was not recognized as the Elijah of 
prophecy: ‘they knew him not’; but this is implied in Mk.’s 
rather confused report of Christ’s words, which Mt. improves. 
‘Even so shall the Son of Man also suffer of them’ is much 
clearer than the words in Mk. A suffering Forerunner is to be 
followed by a suffering Messiah. Such a renewal of the prediction 
of His Passion, immediately after the glory of the Transfiguration, 
is remarkable. 


We cannot safely infer from the vague ἐποίησαν αὐτῷ ὅσα (12) that ‘‘our 
Lord attributed the Baptist’s murder to the Jewish rulers rather than to Herod 
and Herodias.” The nominative to ἐποίησαν may be Herod and Herodias, 
or it may be those who actually captured the Baptist and those who actually 
slew him. The addition in Mk. ix. 13, καθὼς γέγραπται ἐπ᾽ αὐτόν, seems 
to show that Herod and Herodias are meant. In what sense did it ‘stand 
written’ that the Baptist was to suffer as he did, if not in the treatment of 
Elijah by Ahab and Jezebel, who were the prototypes of Herod and Herodias? 

Both Mt. and Mk. have ἐποίησαν, which the AV. renders ‘have done.’ 
The RV. changes ‘have done’ to ‘did’ in Mt. but leaves it unchanged in 
Mk. The difference between ὅσα ἠθέλησαν (Mt.) and ὅσα ἤθελον (Mk.) can 
hardly be made in English without clumsiness of expression. Mt. frequently 
changes Mk.’s imperfects into aorists. In ver. 10 we have ἐπηρώτησαν for 
ἐπηρωτων. Comp. ἐφοβήθη, ἔδωκεν, διεσώθησαν (xiv. 5, 19, 36) for ἐφοβεῖτο, 
ἐδίδου, ἐσώζοντο (Mk. vi. 20, 41, 56), etc. etc. 

The time of year at which the Transfiguration took place is not mentioned 
in any of the narratives ; but Colonel Mackinlay makes the attractive hypo- 
thesis that it was at the Feast of Tabernacles. The proposal of Peter to 
“make three tabernacles ’ may have been suggested to him by the fact that this 
was the season for making such things. ‘‘Some train of thought must have 
been running through his mind, and if the Feast of Tabernacles were at hand 
he might naturally have thought of honouring each by making a tabernacle 
for each” (Zhe Magi, p. 222). Mackinlay, as already noted, makes the 
Feast of Tabernacles the time of the Nativity and also of the beginning of 


1 The difference between ‘six days’ and ‘about eight days’ might arise 
in that way, according as the night was counted with the preceding day or 
not, 


XVII. 14-19] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 241 


Christ’s Ministry; and he places four Feasts of Tabernacles in the Lord’s 
Ministry as well as four Passovers, making the nameless feast of Jn. v. 1 to 
be a Passover. The time at which the Feast of the Transfiguration is cele- 
brated (6 August in most calendars, 14 July in the Armenian) is no guide as 
to the actual date of the event, any more than τὸ Θαβώριον, as one of the 
names for the festival, is any guide as to the place. For speculations as to 
the purposes of the Transfiguration see papers in the /7'S., Jan. and July 1903 
and Jan. 1904. 


XVII. 14-21. The Healing of an Epileptic Boy. 


Mk. and Lk. say that the boy was possessed by a demon or 
unclean spirit, and Mt. falls into this mode of expressing the 
phenomena when he says that ‘the demon came out’ (18), and 
thereby shows his acquaintance with Mk. His own expression, 
‘epileptic’ or ‘moon-struck’ (σεληνιάζεσθαι), is found only here 
and in iv. 24. He greatly shortens Mk.’s narrative, perhaps 
because, with his tenderness for the Apostles, he did not like 
to dwell upon their failure, which, however, had to be mentioned, 
unless the miracle was to be stripped of its most characteristic 
features. The details which he omits are just those which he is 
wont to omit in other cases. He omits the conversation with 
the father of the afflicted boy, in which Jesus asks for information, 
and thereby seems to imply ignorance; and he omits the fact 
that the convulsions caused by Christ’s healing word appeared 
to have killed the lad, until Christ ‘took him by the hand and 
raised him up.’ So that, as in the case of the blind man at 
Bethsaida (Mk. viii. 22-26), which Mt. omits altogether, the 
cure seemed to be at first incomplete. Mt. corrects this im- 
pression by stating that ‘the boy was cured from that hour’ (18). 
While Mk. represents our Lord as taking the initiative with a 
question, Mt. and Lk. begin with the father’s appeal, and Mt. 
alone states that the father knelt to Christ.1 The introductory 
rebuke, ‘O unbelieving generation,’ is in all three, and may or 
may not include the disciples who had failed to heal the boy. 
It appears to be addressed to the multitude as representing the 
nation, and it prepares the way for the more definite rebuke to 
the disciples after the miracle. Mt. and Lk. both add ‘and 
perverse’ to ‘unbelieving.’ The exclamation is one of weariness, 
and perhaps disappointment ; and the ‘how long’ suggests that 
the end which is drawing near will be welcome. 

‘Then came the disciples to Jesus apart, and said, Why 
could not we cast it out?’ Here again Mt. shows his acquaint- 
ance with Mk. In ver. 16, he turned Mk.’s ‘they were not able 


1 Comp. ii. 2, 11, viii. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, xv. 25, xx. 20; but here he 
has γονυπετῶν, instead of his usual προσκυνεῖν : and he alone gives the Κύριε, 
ἐλέησον. 


16 


242 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ XVII. 19, 20 


to cast 11 out’ into ‘they could not cvve him,’ and in ver. 18 he 
said that the boy ‘was curved from that hour’; but here Mk.’s 
expression, ‘cast it out,’ prevails, just as his ‘came out’ prevailed 
in ver. 18. Had Mt. never seen Mk. he would no doubt have 
written, ‘Why could not we cure him?’ The disciples who ask 
the question are, of course, those who had not been with Him 
on the mount.! The whole narrative is written from the point 
of view of those who ad been with Him there, and we can 
hardly doubt that Peter is the chief authority for the three 
accounts. In this concluding portion, however, respecting the 
rebuke to the defeated disciples, Lk. is silent, although he has 
a similar saying, in a different context, xvii. 6. For ‘this 
mountain,’ which means the mount of the Transfiguration, Lk. 
has ‘this sycamine tree.’ ‘Mountain’ was a common Jewish 
metaphor for ‘difficulty,’ and the whole saying is coloured with 
Oriental imagery. Forgetfulness of this has led to strange mis- 
interpretations of what can be done by those who have faith. 
Comp. ix. 22, 29, XVill. 19. 

Mt.’s report of Christ’s reply to the unsuccessful disciples is 
much less obscure than that of Mk. Mk. has: ‘This kind can 
come out by nothing, save by prayer.’ What does ‘This kind’ 
mean? Evil spirits in general? or dumb and deaf spirits in 
particular? And who is to pray? The possessed person? or 
his friends? or the exorcist? ‘The reply in Mt. is clear enough: 
‘Because of your little faith.’ It was not because of His absence: 
when He sent them out two and two to cast out demons and to 
heal diseases, there is no report of failure. It was not the taunts 
of the Scribes: their questioning had followed the failure, not 
caused it. The fault lay in themselves. His power to heal was 
with them as before, but they had lost the power of making use 
of it. Unconsciously they had fallen away into a condition of 
mind in which they trusted either too much in themselves, as if 
the power were their own; or too little in Christ, as if in this 
difficult case He might fail them. It is so easy for faith to 
dwindle, without the loss of it being observed.? It was not their 
faith in Jesus as the Messiah that had failed them, but their faith 
in the commission to heal which He had given them. It endued 
them with power, but the power was not their own. 


1 Mt. says that they came to Him ‘apart’; as usual he omits that it was 
in a house ; comp. ix. 1 with Mk. ii. 1; xii. 22-24 with Mk. ili. 20-225 xv. 
15, 21 with Mk. vii. 17, 243 xvii. 19 with Mk. ix. 28; xix. 6 with Mk. x. 
8-10. 

2 Hence Christ says, ‘as a grain of mustard-seed,’ not, ‘as a grain of 
sand’; small, but capable of growth, and very large growth. Comp. xv. 28, 
where Mt. gives the presence of faith as the cause of healing, but Mk. gives 
a different explanation. See W. M. Alexander, Demonic Possession, pp. 
193, 278. 


XVII. 22, 23) THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 243 


Authorities are divided between ‘little faith’ (ὀλιγοπιστία) and ‘ unbelief’ 
(ἀπιστία). It is more likely that the rare word ὀλιγοπιστία (δὲ B) would be 
changed into the common word ἀπιστία (C D etc.) than vice versa, especially 
as ὦ γενεὰ ἄπιστος might suggest the latter. Four times Mt. has ὀλιγόπιστος 
as a term of reproach to the disciples (vi. 30, viii. 26, xiv. 31, xvi. 8). 

We may safely regard, ‘ But this kind goeth not out save by prayer and 
fasting’ as an interpolation from Mk. ix. 29, made after ‘and fasting’ had 
been added to that verse. Here δὲ B and other important witnesses omit 
the whole verse ; and in those authorities which contain it the wording differs. 

In the next verse (22) there is a various reading of some interest: 
συστρεφομένων (δὲ B), ‘as they were gathering together,’ is to be preferred 
to ἀναστρεφομένων (C D etc.), ‘as they abode.’ The former is rare in the 
N.T. Comp. Acts xxviii. 3. 


XVII. 22, 23. Another Announcement of the Passion. 


What follows the curing of the epileptic boy (22, 23) is often 
called ‘‘the second announcement of the Passion.” But, even as 
regards what is recorded, it is the third: for we have already had 
two (xvi. 21, xvii. 12) ; and it is improbable that all the occasions 
on which our Lord spoke of this subject have been recorded. 
The words which are common to all three narratives of this new 
announcement are: ‘The Son of Man is about to be delivered 
up (μέλλει παραδίδοσθαι) into the hands of men’; but Mk. uses 
the present tense, as of a process which is already begun: ‘is 
being delivered up’ (παραδίδοται). The Glory of the Transfigura- 
tion and the voice proclaiming Him as the Divine Son do not 
interfere with our Lord’s continuing to speak of Himself as the 
Son of Man. What is meant by ‘delivered up’ is not certain. 
It is often understood of the act of the traitor (6 καὶ παραδοὺς 
αὐτόν, x. 4). (Comp. xx. 19, xxvi. 21-25, 46, 48.) But it may 
also, as Origen has pointed out, refer to the delivering up of the 
Son by the Father for the redemption of all men. In this way 
the addition ‘into the hands of man’ has real point; God 
delivers up His Son to men. Otherwise the addition is almost 
superfluous.! 

The changes which Mt. makes in Mk.’s record are again very 
interesting. He corrects ‘after three days’ to ‘on the third day,’ 
and substitutes ‘be raised up’ for ‘rise again’ (comp. xvi. 21 
with Mk. viii. 31); and he again spares the Twelve by omitting 
‘But they understood not the saying, and were afraid to ask 
Him.’ For this he substitutes, ‘And they were exceeding 
sorry,’ which comes strangely after ‘the third day He shall be 

1 Abbott strongly contends for this meaning, and he suggests that the 
original saying was ‘delivered up for men,’ and that it was this which the 
disciples did not understand, for as yet they knew little about the mediatory 
nature of Christ’s death (/aradosis, pp. 53 ff.). But was it not the raising 
again which they could not understand? Mk. ix. 10, 32. Lk. ix. 44, 45 is 
different, 


244 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XVII. 24-27 


raised up.’ But it illustrates the fact that Christ’s predictions of 
the Resurrection were not understood until after He had risen. 
Lk., who here omits the prediction of Christ’s death and rising 
again, says that the meaning of the saying was concealed from 
them purposely (ix. 45). Comp. Lk. xviii. 34, xxiv. τό. Their 
being afraid to ask Him was very natural, both because He was so 
reserved respecting Himself, and because they feared to learn 
something still more trying. The severe rebuke to Peter would 
also be fresh in their minds. They neither remonstrate nor 
question, but maintain a mournful and perplexed silence. 
Comp. xxvi. 22. 


XVII. 24-27. The Temple-Tax and the Stater in the Fish’s 
Mouth. 


Excepting the introductory words about a return to 
Capernaum, this narrative is peculiar to Mt. In reference 
to the return, he characteristically omits Christ’s entrance into 
a house and the fact that on the way the disciples had 
disputed which of them was greatest. It was before the disciples 
entered the house that the tax-collectors had applied to Peter for 
the usual contribution, and it may have been their recognizing 
him as leader and spokesman that started the discussion as to 
who was first in the company. Half a shekel was payable 
annually to the Temple by every Jew over twenty years of age 
(Exod. xxx. 13). The sheke/ equalled four Attic Drachme (Jos. 
Ant. i. vill. 2), and hence this tax came to be known as ‘¢he 
two drachme’ (τὸ δίδραχμον or τὰ δίδραχμα). ‘Does your Master 
not pay the usual tax?’ The collectors, who were quite different 
from the ‘publicans’ or collectors of toll for the Romans or the 
Herods, perhaps knew that Jesus did not always conform to 
traditional regulations ; and, as Jesus had only recently returned 
to Capernaum, the tax may have become due while He was 
absent.!_ Peter, who knew what Christ’s previous practice had 
been, at once says that He does pay; and Mt.’s special interest 
in Peter seems to have led to the preservation of this narrative. 
Our Lord does not wait for Peter to consult Him as to whether 
he has answered rightly or not, about which he perhaps had 
misgivings: He anticipates Peter, and thus disposes of the 
question of the tribute before rebuking the Twelve for their 
dispute about precedence. 

The exact meaning of Christ’s argumentative parable is 


1 But the tax was like a voluntary church-rate ; no one could be compelled 
to pay. Peter may have suspected that the collectors’ question was an 
insinuation that Jesus would not pay, and hence his prompt affirmative: 
‘© Of course.” 


XVII. 25-27] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 245 


debated, but the old explanation is probably the right one: that 
Jesus, as the Son of God, is free from an impost for the mainten- 
ance of His Father’s Temple. The objections to this are not 
conclusive. It is urged that such an argument would reveal just 
what He had forbidden the Twelve to divulge, that He was the 
Messiah. But the argument would not have gone beyond the 
disciples. To the collectors it would have sufficed to reply: “I 
do not wish to pay.” Again, it is urged that in the parable we 
have ‘from their sons,’ not ‘from their son,’ and the plural does 
not commonly represent an individual. But the form of the 
parable requires the plural; ‘aliens’ or ‘strangers’ is plural, 
and it needs a plural contrast. The contrast is between those 
who are members of the royal family and those who are not; 
the former being exempt from taxation. Whether the royal 
family is represented by one son or by several is not of the 
essence of the argument. This interpretation of the argument is 
so simple, and fits the context so well, that it is likely to be the 
right one. 

Relying upon the plural, some would interpret the ‘sons’ as 
meaning the whole Jewish nation, or, at any rate, all religious 
Jews.! If this is correct, then our Lord is teaching that this is 
not a tax which ought to be collected from Jews at all, but 
perhaps might be imposed upon Gentiles. Yet would He have 
suggested getting money from heathen to support Jewish 
worship? And would He have treated in this way an impost 
which was believed to be enjoined by the written Law? His 
treatment of the rule of not eating without washing is not 
parallel ; that was human tradition. 

Others would make ‘their sons’ refer, neither to Christ 
exclusively, nor to the whole Jewish nation, but to Christ and 
His disciples. In that case ‘their sons’ does not mean the 
royal family, but the royal household. Christ would not have 
counted Himself as a son in the sense in which the disciples 
were ‘sons of God’ (comp. v. 9). His Sonship is unique. ‘I 
ascend unto My Father and your Father (Jn. xx. 17) marks this 
clearly ; and here also He says: ‘That take and give for Me and 
thee.’ But Christ and His disciples, though not in the same 
sense members of the royal family, were in the same sense 
members of the royal household. In so far as the Kingdom had 
already come, they were in it; and in so far as it was future, 
they were fellow-workers for it. This Kingdom was to supersede 
all Jewish worship, and the promoters of the new Kingdom were 


1 It is not likely that ‘their sons’ means their fellow-countrymen. A Jew, 
with experience of taxation under the Herods, would not think it true that 
Jewish kings do not tax Jews. See Schiirer, Jewish People, 11. i. pp. 250, 
251. 


246 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XVII. 25-27 


not bound to support a dispensation which it was their duty to 
render obsolete. In this way Jesus might claim for Himself and 
His disciples an exemption which could not be claimed for all 
Jews. ‘That we may not cause them to stumble’ is in favour 
of including the disciples in the claim. 

Nevertheless, the question which called forth this argument 
was whether Jesus Himself would pay. No question is raised 
about the Twelve. It seems to be assumed throughout that 
Peter, and therefore his companions, will pay.! And perhaps it 
is safer to confine the reference to the Divine Sonship of Jesus, 
the bearing of which upon the question, Peter, in his eagerness 
to place his Master in a favourable light with the collectors, had 
overlooked. But in any case we have an instance of the humility 
of Christ, who, although He was greater than the Temple, yet 
submitted to be taxed for the continuance of sacrifices, which for 
a few months longer would still have a meaning in foreshadowing 
the one Sacrifice to be offered by Himself. Moreover, “ Jesus 
here illustrates a fixed principle of all reforms, viz. the avoidance 
of actions which are not absolutely essential for the success of 
the reform, and which, because easily misunderstood, and so 
arousing prejudice, would make it more difficult for others to 
join in the good movement” (Burton and Mathews, p. 163). 
Some, who might otherwise have listened to Him, would have 
turned away had He seemed by His example to teach that the 
Temple-services were not worth maintaining. His willingness to 
pay may remind us of His willingness to submit to baptism in 
order to fulfil all righteousness, and also of His zeal for the 
honour of His Father’s House, when the hierarchy had turned it 
into a place of traffic. Neither His right to exemption, on the 
one hand, nor the fact that the Temple would soon be over- 
thrown, on the other, allowed Him to spare Himself cost or 
trouble. He submits rather than risk causing others to offend. 
And, as if to confirm Peter in the conviction that as the Son 
of God He is free, He manifests to him a miracle of fore- 
knowledge.? 

The miracle is not without its difficulties, of which the silence 
of the other Evangelists is only a small part. It seems to violate 
the principle, that miracles are never wrought where ordinary 
means would suffice. The small sum required could have been 
obtained in some other way. It brings no healing or comfort to 
any one. It seems to be wrought for a very trifling purpose ; for, 


1 Peter seems to be recognized as the head disciple: and neither he nor 
his Master has any money; comp. xxii. 19. 

2 All the attempts have been in vain which were made by the older 
Rationalism to put a non-miraculous meaning into these words” (B. Weiss, 


Life of Christ, ii. p. 337). 


XVII. 25-27] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 247 


poor as Christ and His disciples were, the raising of three or four 
shillings does not appear to be a matter that calls for a miracle. 
Moreover, in the advantage gained by the finding of the coin, 
Jesus Himself shared. Indeed the chief use of the money was 
to pay His tax. for Him. 

These objections would have more force, if our Lord had 
turned a stone into a sfa/er,! or had created the money required. 
The miracle lies solely in His knowing beforehand that there 
would be no need to dip into the bag which Judas carried, but 
that God would provide exactly what was required. This super- 
natural knowledge was a lesson to Peter, and through him to 
Christendom, respecting the character and the freedom of the 
Christ. The Father was about to enable the Son to avoid 
violating either His own freedom or the consciences of those 
who could not understand that freedom. Jesus knows this, and 
He allows Peter to know it. 

There is nothing incredible in the manner in which the money 
is found. Such things have happened, and our Lord may have 
foretold that it would happen to Peter. But we may allow the 
possibility of metaphor, or of the exact words used by Christ 
being either misunderstood or modified in tradition. ‘In the 
fish that thou shalt catch thou shalt find what will pay for Me 
and for thee’ might mean that the fish would sell for as much ; 
and this would easily take the form which Mt. records. We are 
not told that Peter did find a coin in the mouth of a fish, and 
thus the confirmation of the exact terms of the prediction is 
lacking. The case is not like that of the colt tied (Mk. xi. 2, 4), 
or that of the man bearing a pitcher of water (Mk. xiv. 13, 16), 
in both of which cases both the prediction and the fulfilment 
are recorded. 


In Cod. Algerinze Peckover (Evan. 561, Gregory 713, which is one of the 
Ferrar group and of about the eleventh century) there is an insertion between 
zy. 26and 27. ‘*Simon said, Yea. Jesus saith, Give therefore thou also 
as their stranger”: ἔφη Σίμων" val. λέγει ὁ ᾿Τησοῦς" δὸς οὖν καὶ σὺ ὡς ἀλλότριος 

᾿ αὐτῶν. In vv. 25, 26 there are small deviations from the true text, and in 
ver. 27 ἐγκείμενον is added after στατῆρα and ἐκεῖ before it: εὑρήσεις ἐκεῖ 
στατῆρα ἐγκείμενον. There is no reason to suppose that the interpolated say- 
ings are anything more than a paraphrasing parallel of the true text. See 
Resch, Agrapha, No. 14, p. 37, 2nd ed. ; C. R. Gregory, Das /reer-Logion, 
p- 25. The interpolation about the tribute is found also in the Arabic 


1 A stater was equal to four drachme or to one sheke/, and therefore would 
pay for two persons. As the didrachm was very rarely coined at this period, 
it must have been a common thing for two persons to pay the tax with one 
coin; and this is some confirmation of the tradition that a coin, and the right 
amount for two payments, was found. It is a further confirmation of it that 
the tradition must have arisen at a time when the Temple was still standing 
(Wellhausen, p. 90). See F. W. Madden, Hist. of Jewish Coinage, pp. 
235-242. 


248 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [ XVIII. 1-35 


Diatessaron (xxv. 6); see Burkitt, Zvangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. pp. 192, 
274. Inthe Acta Thome, 143, Bonnet, p. 250, Christ is said to ‘‘ have given 
head-money for Himself and His disciples "--ἐπικεφάλαια δεδωκὼς ὑπὲρ αὐτοῦ 
καὶ τῶν αὐτοῦ μαθητῶν. 

Characteristic expressions in ch. xvii.: καὶ ἰδού (3, 5), ἰδού (5), σφόδρα 
(6, 23), προσέρχεσθαι (7, 14, 19, 24), τότε (13, 19), προσφέρειν (16), ὥρα 
ἐκείνη (18), μεταβαίνειν (20 615), ἐκεῖ (20), τί σοι δοκεῖ ; (25), πορεύεσθαι (27). 
The following are not found elsewhere in the N.T.: σεληνιάζεσθαι (15 and 
iv. 24), ὀλιγοπιστία (20), τὰ δίδραχμα (24 2s), mpopOdvew (25), ἄγκιστρον 
(27), στατήρ (27). 

The derivation of στατήρ is from ἵστημι in the sense of ‘ weigh,’ a sense 
which it has in xxvi. 15 (RV.), where D reads στατῆρας instead of ἀργύρια. 
A stater, therefore, is a standard weight or coin, and the ¢etradrachm was so 
used. This was convenient in Palestine, where the Phoenician fetradrachm 
or staterv=the Hebrew shekeZ. ‘For Me and thee’ (not, ‘for both of us’) 
separates the Lord from Peter (comp. Jn. xx. 17). Perhaps the meaning is 
that the reasons for which each of them paid were different. 


XVIII. 1-35. Discourses at Capernaum. 


The first of these is on the childlike temper, a subject which 
arises out of the question of precedence which had been raised 
by the disciples. According to Mk. this question had been 
disputed by the disciples ‘in the’ way’ (ix. 33), which would 
mean on the journey from the neighbourhood of Czsarea 
Philippi to Capernaum. Possibly the preference shown to Peter, 
James and John at the Transfiguration had led to this dispute ; 
or Peter’s forwardness on that occasion may have led the three 
to dispute whether he had any right to precedence. Jesus sits 
down, summons all the Twelve, and charges them to become 
like children. Mt. once more spares the Twelve by omitting 
the dispute, and he represents the disciples as coming to Jesus 
to ask Him about precedence, and He then calls a child. By 
saying that the disciples’ question was asked ‘in that hour,’ and 
that it was in the form ‘Who λέῃ (τίς dpa) is greatest in the 
Kingdom ?,’ he closely connects it with the prominence given 
to Peter by the collectors and by Christ Himself, in the matter 
of the Temple-tax. It is clear that throughout this chapter Mt. 
has another authority besides Mk. 

Christ Himself had just given an example of humility in 
submitting to be taxed for the Temple-services. He now gives 
a striking object-lesson on the subject. That the child whom 
He took for this purpose was Ignatius is a very late tradition of 
the ninth century, and needs no more than a passing mention 
(Lightfoot, Zenatius, i. p. 27, 11. p. 22). The child was probably 
one belonging to the house in which Christ was staying, and 
was well known to Him. The words with which the discourse 
opens (3) may have been transferred from Mk. x. 14, 15 (= Mt. 
x1x. 14), but they are quite suitable in both contexts. ‘Except 


XVIII. 1-7] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 240 


ye turn and become’ is peculiar to this context, and the meaning 
seems to be that by raising this question of precedence the 
disciples had gone in the wrong direction. They evidently did 
not know where true greatness was to be found; and, if they 
desire to enter the Kingdom, they must remember the first 
Beatitude and return to the childlike attitude, which does not 
seek prominence but shrinks from it. In the Kingdom it is 
these childlike souls that are greatest (4). 

In what follows (5), the important qualification, ‘in My 
Name,’ which is in all three reports, must not be overlooked: 
comp. ‘for My sake’ (xvi. 25). The disciple who wins the high 
honour of receiving Christ is he who welcomes little children, not 
because he is fond of children, but because they represent 
Christ.1 The full meaning is ‘on the basis of My Name’ (ézi τῷ 
ὀνόματί pov). His name is the symbol of His character, and the 
childlike character is a Christlike character—meek and lowly 
in heart, with a sense of dependence for everything upon a 
parent’s wisdom and love. The attractiveness of such a char- 
acter, whether in children or in adults, ought to be felt by every 
Christian. 

The beauty of the childlike temper suggests another subject, 
—the heinousness of marring such beauty, and indeed, generally, 
the grievous sin involved in causing others to sin (6-10). Lk. 
has words similar to vv. 6, 7 at xvil. 1, 2, but without connexion 
with any incident. They are part of the training of the Twelve. 
Here the mention of ‘little ones’ connects the two verses with 
what precedes, and the thought of ‘causing to stumble’ with 
what follows. The misery of having ruined a beautiful character 
by seducing it into evil is so intense, that a man had better be 
thrown into the sea, like a dog with a stone round its neck, 
rather than incur it. Drowning was not a Jewish punishment, 
and in Palestine the scarcity of water would be against any such 
mode of execution. But here there is no thought of punishment. 
The thought is that it is better to suffer a dreadful and igno- 
minious death before being guilty of any such sin. It was in 
order to avoid all risk of causing others to offend that Jesus 
submitted to be taxed for the Temple-services. But, in the case 
before us, there is no mere risk, but certainty. And let no one 
think that he cannot fe/p sometimes causing little ones to 
stumble. It is true that, the world being so full of temptations, 
and human nature being so weak, occasions of stumbling are 
sure to come and at times to prove fatal; but that does not 
prove that those who cause them are irresponsible. It is a 


1 There is something which reminds us of the Fourth Gospel in the ex- 
pression: Jn. xii. 44, 45, xiii. 20, xiv. 9, 24, xv. 23. Comp. Mt. x. 40, 
which anticipates this saying ; also /#rge Adoth, v. 24. 


250 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ XVIII. 8-10 


grievous thing for the world that some men consent to be 
seducers, and it is a still more grievous thing for the seducers 
that they consent to become such.! 

And there is such a thing as seducing oneself (8, 9), 26. 
letting the lower part of one’s nature lead the higher part astray, 
for it is the higher part that is one’s true self. We have had 
teaching of this kind already in the Sermon on the Mount 
(v. 29, 30); and the solemnity and stringency of the wording 
ought to convince us of its importance. The language, of course, 
is metaphorical, but there is no doubt as to its meaning. If the 
choice has to be made, it is better to sacrifice most precious 
elements of our being, rather than be guilty of conduct that 
would incur total and irreparable loss of the whole. We sacrifice 
even the most valuable of our limbs, in order to avoid the death 
of the body by incurable disease. We ought to be ready to 
sacrifice things of still greater value, in order to avoid the 
death of the soul in ‘the eternal fire.’ Mk. here has ‘the un- 
quenchable fire,’ which Mt. has in iii. 12. In both these verses 
the ‘fire’ is opposed to ‘life,’ and therefore seems to mean 
‘destruction.’2 It can hardly mean endless life in torment. The 
Jews of that age perhaps thought of endless torment as the 
portion of the wicked, as they also thought that the righteous in 
bliss would behold the torments of the wicked, while the wicked 
in their agony beheld the happiness of the righteous. Christ 
left those ideas undisturbed, but that is no proof that they are 
true. And in some respects, although He did not contradict 
current beliefs, He left teaching which has undermined them. 
See Gould on Mk. ix. 43, and Charles on Enoch xxvii. 1. 

Two points must be kept in view in considering the solemn 
warnings. They are hypothetical, depending upon an ‘if’; ‘Jf 
hand, foot, or eye cause thee to stumble.’ And the decision 
whether they do so or not, and therefore the adoption of the 
necessary remedy, rests with the person himself. 

Hand, foot, and eye are excellent things, capable of doing 
God and man good service as well as of being means of innocent 
delight to the possessor of them. They are God’s gifts, and 
they were not given simply to be sacrificed and thrown away. 


1In Clem. Hom. xii. 29 Peter is represented as saying: ‘‘ The prophet 
of the truth said, Good things must (δεῖ) come, and blessed is he through 
whom they come; in like manner evil things also must needs (ἀνάγκη) come, 
but woe to him through whom they come.” The δεῖ, as often in the Gospels, 
may mean ‘ by God’s decree’ (xxiv. 6, xxvi. 54), which is true of the good, 
but not of the evil. Comp. Pirge Aboth, v. 26. 

2 The expressions, τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον, ἡ κάμινος τοῦ πυρός (xiii. 42), and 
κόλασις αἰώνιος (xxv. 46), are peculiar to Mt. It is remarkable that κόλασις 
and κολάζειν, both frequent in the LXX., occur only twice each in the N.T. 
And βάλε ἀπὸ σοῦ is peculiar to Mt. 


XVIHI. 8-10] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 251 


No doubt they can be abused; but so can life itself, and we 
may as well part with it at once, if everything that is capable of 
abuse must be sacrificed. Nevertheless, experience may prove 
to us that some of the blessings which God has placed within 
our reach are so perilous to us, and so often lead us into evil, 
that there is only one course open to us, if we are to be 
faithful to our calling, and that is, to give up such things 
altogether. But the decision must rest with ourselves, and 
be confined to ourselves. No one else can decide for us; 
and we have no right to impose the restrictions which we find 
necessary for ourselves upon others, or judge others for not 
adopting them. 

From these sayings respecting the subtle dangers of self- 
seduction the discourse returns to the leading thought of little 
children, and especially to that of the great guilt of leading 
children into sin. The ‘Take heed’ or ‘See’ (épa@re) indicates 
the importance of the charge (comp. viii. 4, ix. 30, xvi. 6). We 
must not for a moment suppose that the misleading of an 
innocent child cannot be a very serious thing,—that a little 
child does not count. Every single child counts, and it is well 
worth while to endeavour to keep even one such from being 
led astray. This teaching is further enforced with a reason, 
which is introduced with solemnity: ‘For I say to you, that in 
heaven their Angels do always behold the face of My Father 
which is in heaven.’ That shows how precious each one of 
them is in God’s sight; and what God values so highly man 
must not despise. 

Although it is certain that this is the tenour of the argument, 
it is not quite certain what the details of it mean. It appears to 
mean that the Angels which represent children are the Angels 
of the presence, z.e. the highest of all (Lk. i. 19; Tob. xii. 15). 
God has commissioned the most glorious of all His creatures to 
be sponsors for little children. It is not so clear that the saying 
implies that each child has a Guardian-Angel. The story of 
Tobit and Acts xii. 15 seem to show that a belief in a Guardian- 
Angel for each individual was current among the Jews, and here 
Christ may be sanctioning such a belief. But the purport of the 
saying is sufficiently intelligible, if we interpret it as meaning that 
the Angels which are the heavenly counterparts of children 
always have ready access to God’s presence.’ It is ‘the little 
ones who believe in Me’ (6) that are specially under considera- 
tion. In them the qualities are most likely to be found which 
every Christian ought to reverence as reflexions of Christ Himself. 


1 The saying, however, becomes unintelligible on the hypothesis that 
Christ knew that there are no such beings as Angels; see on xiii. 49 and 
xvi. 27. See Montefiore, p. 679. 


252 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [XVIII. 10-18 


There is possibly an intimation that the Angels which protect children, or 
which represent them before God (if each human soul as a representative 
Angel), never lose the presence of God through the children’s misconduct. 
The emphasis may be on διὰ παντός. These innocent little ones never do 
anything that would put their representatives to shame before God. If this 
is so, then we may compare the Angels of the Churches in the Apocalypse ; 
for they seem to be beings who represent the Churches and are in some way 
responsible for the conduct of each Church (Rev. ii., iii.). In the Book of 
Jubilees (xxxv. 17) there appears to be a reference to the belief in representa- 
tive or guardian Angels ; and, if so, it isa very early reference. Isaac says 
to Rebecca: ‘* Fear thou not on account of Jacob ; for the guardian of Jacob 
is great and powerful and honoured, and praised more than the guardian of 
Esau.” See J. H. Moulton on ‘It is his Angel’ in the Jour. of 7h. St., 
July 1902, p. 514. D. B. Warfield holds that ‘little ones’ means ‘My 
disciples,’ not children; DCG., art. ‘ Little Ones.’ 

The whole of ver. 11, ‘ For the Son of Man came to save that which was 
lost’ is rightly omitted as an interpolation from Lk. xix. 10. It is wanting 
in X B L and other important authorities, and is rejected by alleditors. It 
was probably inserted to make an introduction to the parable of the Lost 
Sheep, which follows somewhat abruptly. But the insertion spoils rather 
than helps the connexion between ver. 10 and ver. 12. Christ has just been 
teaching how precious one child is in God’s sight ; and on that doctrine the 
parable follows very naturally. The saying about the Son of Man has some 
affinity with search for the lost sheep, but it does not help to connect this idea 
with that about little children. 


The connexion of the parable of the Lost Sheep (12, 13) 
with what precedes is that God cares for children and for child- 
like believers as a shepherd cares for his sheep. If one of them 
is lost, He will make every effort to recover it, and will rejoice 
greatly if He succeeds. If God takes so much trouble to recover 
a little one that has strayed, how grievous it must be to cause it 
to stray. Rather, every effort should be made to prevent it from 
straying. The parable is more beautifully drawn out in Lk. xv. 
3-7 than here, and the context there is more suitable. It is 
probable that in this chapter we have a number of Christ’s 
sayings which Mt. has grouped together in a way of his own. 
The connecting thought in the first fourteen verses is that of 
little children. For the remainder of the chapter the connecting 
thought is the forgiveness of sins, a subject which is suggested 
by the parable of the Lost Sheep. The Evangelist sees that, 
while the owner’s diligence in seeking for the one sheep that has 
strayed illustrates God’s love for a single child, yet that is not 
the only lesson. The sheep that has so foolishly and wilfully 
strayed is not only recovered and restored to the flock, but 
rejoiced over, as if the recovery were a great gain; and that 
illustrates God’s great love in the forgiveness of sinners. _We 
pass on, therefore, to a collection of sayings connected with this 
subject. The way in which God deals with His erring sheep 
leads on to the way in which a man should deal with his erring 
brother. He should endeavour to seek and recover him who 


XVIII. 15-17] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 253 


has gone astray (15). But, as there was a possibility that ¢ven 
the Divine Owner might fail in recovering His sheep,—‘/ so be 
that He find it,—much more is there a possibility that a man 
may fail in regaining his offending brother. ‘The will is left free 
in each case; there is no compulsion, and the erring one may 
refuse to be won back. We are not told of the various methods 
which God tries, when the wanderer refuses to return ; they do 
not so much concern us; but we know that there is a Divine 
perseverance in such things.! ‘Until He find it’ is the expres- 
sion in Lk., without thought of ultimate failure. But we are 
told of the various methods to be adopted by a Christian, when 
a brother has sinned against him. First, private remonstrance 
and entreaty, with no one present but the offender and the 
offended. Then one or two more are to be present, who with 
the offended person will make up the two or three witnesses 
required by Deut. xix. 15. Yet these are not witnesses of the 
original wrong-doing, but of the wronged person’s attempts at 
reconciliation, and of the response which the wrong-doer makes 
to them. They will be able to certify that the one has honestly 
tried to bring the other to a better mind, and that the other has 
or has not yielded to his efforts.? If this fails, the wronged 
person is to ‘tell it to the Church’ (ἐκκλησία). Evidently ‘the 
Church’ here cannot mean the Christian Church which Christ 
intends to build (xvi. 18).8 It means the Jewish assembly, and 
probably the local assembly, the elders and congregation of the 
synagogue in the place where the parties live (Hort, Zhe 
Christian Ecclesia, p. 10). The directions here given are applic- 
able to the Christian community, but, at the time, they must 
have been spoken of a community of Jews. 

It is assumed throughout that the injured person is making 
a genuine endeavour to reclaim his erring brother.’ But, while 
it is one against one, the erring brother may suspect unfairness. 
He has far less reason for this when one or two more have heard 
the case. He has still less excuse for suspicion when the whole 
congregation are judges. All that is required is that he should 
own that he has done wrong and should ask forgiveness. 
Nothing is said about punishment. But it is now clear that he 


1 The change from the future (ἀφήσει, ‘ will leave’) to the present (ζητεῖ, 
‘ goes on seeking ’) suggests the continuance of the effort (12). 

2 Moreover they may help to persuade the erring brother to yield. Just as 
the expelled demon took other demons to help a work of ruin (xii, 45), so 
the injured person takes other members of the community to help a work of 
restoration (παραλαμβάνειν in both places). 

3 In Syr-Sin. ἐκκλησία is translated ‘synagogue.’ Comp. the remarkable 
parallel to this in the Testaments: ‘‘If a man sin against thee, speak 

ceably to him, and in thy soul hold no guile; and if he repent and con- 
ess, forgive him” (Gad vi. 3). 


254 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [ XVIII. 17,18 


does not wish to be reconciled.1_ He zw// not do what every one 
else sees to be reasonable; and he is now to be regarded as no 
true member of the congregation. The toll-collectors were 
regarded as virtually heathen and excommunicate, and this 
obstinately impenitent brother is henceforth to be treated as one 
of them (B. Weiss, Zzfe of Christ, ii. p. 122). Intercourse with 
him would be contaminating, for he might lead others to be as 
impenitent and rebellious as himself; and as long as he maintains 
this attitude, he cannot be forgiven and restored. 

In what follows (18) we perhaps have the original form of 
xvi. 19. What was spoken to the Twelve collectively may have 
been adapted afterwards to Peter as their leader. The meaning 
here seems to be that the decisions of the congregation, whether 
Jewish or Christian, are final. They have the authority to forbid 
and to allow, to refuse or to grant forgiveness. But it may be 
doubted whether the saying was originally spoken in its present 
context. Possibly it ought to be kept apart from what precedes 
(15-17), and perhaps also from what follows (19, 20).2 The 
Evangelist appears to be putting together, as one discourse, a 
number of utterances which have no connexion beyond a certain 
community of thought. But we may follow his grouping without 
assuming that it is historically correct. 

By his ‘Again’ (πάλιν) Mt. couples the second ‘I say unto 
you’ (19) with the former one (18), and some texts (BI X ΠῚ 
read ‘ Again, verily I say unto you.’ The connexion is that God 
is sure to ratify the decision of the congregation, for He hears 
the prayer of any two members of it. But, out of the connexion 
in which Mt. has placed it, tne lesson is that the smallest 
possible congregation is certain to be heard when it unites in 
prayer. Probably the contrast between ‘on earth’ and ‘in 
heaven’ has caused Mt. to group vv. 19, 20 with ver. 18. But 
the connexion between vz. 19 and 20 is original and close. The 
prayers of two will be granted, because Christ is with them when 
they unite in prayer.? In the Oxyrhynchus Logia there is a 
saying which seems to be an echo of this passage: ‘Jesus saith, 
Wherever there are [two], they are not without God (ἄθεοι), and 


1 For παρακούειν of ‘refusing to comply’ comp. Is. lxv. 12; Esth. iii. 3, 
8; Tob. ii. 4. In Mk. v. 36 Jesus ‘refuses to attend’ to the message that 
the daughter of Jairus is dead. In the Testaments, the angry man ‘ refuses 
to attend” to a Prophet of the Lord (Daz ii. 3). As to appealing to the 
congregation comp. ‘‘ Judge not alone, for none may judge alone save One” 
(Pirge Aboth, iv. 12). 

2 We must keep it apart from both, if we regard it as conferring special 
powers upon the Apostles, for ver. 17 refers to a congregation, Jewish or 
Christian, and ver. 19 refers to any two who unite in prayer. 

3D and Syr-Sin. give the saying negatively: οὐκ εἰσὶν yap . . . παρ᾽ οἷς 
οὐκ εἰμὶ ἐν μέσῳ αὐτῶν. Comp. ‘‘ When ten sit and are occupied in words 
of Thorah, the Shekinah is among them” (Pzvge Adoth, iii. 9). 


as 


XVIII. 21, 22] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 255 


wherever there is one alone, I say I am with him”; comp. Eph. 
i. 23. Of course, the saying in Mt. does not mean that God is 
pledged to grant whatever any two persons agree to ask. His 
will is to grant what is best for them, and what two agree about 
is likely to be good, especially if Christ is with them. 

The Evangelist’s interest in Peter is again conspicuous (x. 2, 
xiv. 28, 29, xv. 15, xvi. 18, 22, xvil. 4, 24). Peter's question 
goes back to ver. 15. The injured man who endeavours to 
reclaim his injurer must of course have forgiven him in his 
heart: otherwise it would be hopeless to seek reconciliation. 
He goes, not for his own sake, to seek for reparation, but for 
the wrong-doer’s sake, to win him back from evil. To the 
impetuous Peter that seems to be a difficult saying, and he 
desires explanation. Surely there are limits to this kind of 
forbearance. Is one to go on forgiving forever? Will not seven 
times be a generous allowance? 

The man who asks such a question does not really know 
what forgiveness means. When an injury is forgiven, it is 
absolutely cancelled so far as the injured person is concerned. 
It is not to be kept in abeyance, to be reckoned against the 
offender, if he offends again. Christ’s reply is to the effect that 
there must be no counting at all. Ten times the limit suggested 
by Peter will be far too little. Multiply that again by seven, and 
it will not be too much. The meaning is that there must be 
no limit. The coincidence with Lamech’s song in Gen. iv. 24 
is remarkable: ‘If Cain shall be avenged sevenfold, truly 
Lamech seventy and sevenfold.’ Indeed, “a definite allusion to 
the Genesis story is highly probable: Jesus pointedly sets 
against the natural man’s craving for seventy-sevenfold revenge 
the spiritual man’s ambition to exercise the privilege of seventy- 
sevenfold [RV. marg.] forgiveness” (J. H. Moulton, Gr. of 
N.T. Grk. i. p. 98). Comp. ‘Forgive thy neighbour the hurt 
that he hath done thee; and then thy sins shall be pardoned 
when thou prayest’ (Ecclus. xxviii. 2). “ When you might have 
vengeance do not repay either your neighbour or your enemy” 
(Secrets of Enoch, 1]. 4). But Jewish tradition limited forgive- 
ness to three times. Amos i. 3, 6, 9, etc., and Job xxxiil. 29 
were supposed to justify this limit. If three transgressions filled 
up the measure that God might forgive, ought man to be more 
placable ? 

1In Lk. xvii. 4 this is expressed by ‘seven times in a day.’ Jerome(Adv, 
Pelag. iii. 2) preserves a fragment of the Gospel according to the Hebrews: 
“Ἡς saith, If thy brother hath sinned in word and hath made thee amends, 
seven times in a day receive him. Simon His disciple said to Him, Seven 
times in a day? The Lord answered and said to him, I tell thee also, unto 


seventy times seven: for in the prophets also, after they were anointed by the 
Holy Spirit, a sinful word was found.” 


256 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XVIII. 23-27 


It matters little whether the parable of the Unmerciful 
Servant was spoken immediately after the saying about ‘seventy 
times seven,’ or has been placed here by the Evangelist to 
illustrate that saying. The ‘Therefore’ (διὰ τοῦτο) marks a close 
connexion with the saying. Because in the Kingdom the duty 
of forgiving is unlimited, therefore the Kingdom is like an 
earthly king, whose astounding generosity to a debtor laid that 
debtor under an obligation to show all possible consideration to 
others. The requirements of the Kingdom and the requirements 
of this king are similar. The disciples do not ask for any 
explanation, and the lesson to be drawn is manifest. The 
offences of any man against us are utterly trivial compared with 
our offences against God. He has forgiven us these, and He 
requires us to forgive our fellows. If we fail to show forgiveness, 
His forgiveness of us cannot continue. ‘For judgment is with- 
out mercy to him that hath showed no mercy’ (Jas. ii. 13).? 

The ‘pence’ should be shillings or florins to represent the 
sum rightly. A devarius contained less silver than a shilling, 
but it would buy as much as two shillings will buy now. There- 
fore Loo denarii may represent £10. But a talent was equal to 
6000 denarit; and the debt to God is represented as 10,000 
talents, a sum which in human life could hardly be owed to any 
one but a king, and to him only by a financial minister. We are 
perhaps to think of some great man who has farmed one of the 
taxes and become bankrupt. The king’s order respecting him 
is not very different from what was sanctioned by the Mosaic 
Law (Lev. xxv. 39, 47; 2 Kings iv. 1). A man’s wife and 
children were his property. The order is also in accordance 
with the idea that the whole of a man’s family is responsible for 
his acts (Josh. viil.). The king’s response to the debtor’s entreaty 
is of the most munificent kind. The man merely asked to be 
left free to work off the debt. The king not only does not sell 
him into slavery, he cancels the whole debt, which could never 
have been discharged in full. 

Why is the debt to God represented as so enormous? Partly 
as a true contrast to offences between man and man, and partly 
because every sin is an act of rebellion, and thus small acts, 
which attract little or no attention, may be great sins. Moreover, 
they accumulate; and no one can tell what the total amount in 
his own case may be. And it is here that the analogy of the 

1 With μὴ ἔχοντος δὲ αὐτοῦ ἀποδοῦναι comp. Mk. xiv. 8; Lk. xii. 4, xiv. 
14; Acts iv. 14; Heb. vi. 13. In such expressions ἔχω hardly differs from 
δύναμαι, and this use is specially common in connexion with payment of 
money. Field, O¢zm Norvic. iii. p. 10. 

* Comp. Shakespeare, Merchant of Venice, Act IV. sc. 1. Portia: 


“« Therefore, Jew, 
Though justice be thy plea,” etc. 


ae Vole “Set 


XVIII. 28-35] THE MINISTRY IN OR NEAR GALILEE 257 


whole family being threatened with slavery to pay the father’s 
debt comes in. A man cannot confine the consequences of his 
sin to himself. Even those who have had no share in his guilt 
will be involved in the misery which it produces: besides which, 
there is the evil effect which his vitiated character will insensibly 
have upon others. 

In his passionate appeal for forbearance, the king’s debtor 
promises to pay a// in time, a promise unlikely to be fulfilled. 
The fellow-servant merely promises to pay. In his fury, the 
creditor injures himself in order to take vengeance. By im- 
prisoning his debtor he made it almost impossible for him to 
pay. And now, for the first time, we are told that the king was 
angry, and this is the main lesson of the parable.) An unfor- 
giving spirit is sure to provoke the anger of God; so much so, 
that His free forgiveness of sinners ceases to flow to them, when 
in this way they offend. So to speak, it revives the guilt of their 
otherwise forgiven sins. This is a truth of tremendous import, 
and we may be thankful that this Evangelist has preserved for us 
a parable which teaches the truth so plainly. For we are not 
apt to think of what seems to be a merely negative quality,—the 
absence of a forgiving temper, as a fatal sin. There are many 
sins which we rightly regard as heinous,—breaches of the sixth, 
or seventh, or eighth commandment. But we are not accustomed 
to think that to treasure up the recollection of injuries which 
we think that we have received from others may be a sin that is 
greater than any of these. It is those that are most conscious 
of the incalculable amount that God has forgiven them, who are 
readiest to forgive all, and more than all the injuries that any 
man can inflict upon them. ‘ Let all bitterness and wrath and 
anger be put away from you, with all malice; and be ye kind 
one to another, tender-hearted, forgiving one another, even as 
God in Christ hath forgiven you’ (Eph. iv. 31, 32). 

We do not know whether it was the feeling which had 
been generated in some of the Twelve by the dispute as to 
which was the greatest that called forth this impressive parable. 
But the teaching which it embodies was not new to them. 
We gather that it had already been set forth to the multitudes, 
for it appears in two places in the material which forms the 
Sermon on the Mount (v. 23-26, vi. 14, 15). And in Mk, 
we have it among the last instructions during the Holy Week 
(xi. 25). The love that forgives is as necessary as the faith that 
prays. See Montefiore, p. 685. 


1*The tormentors’ is part of the literary detail in the story, and we must 
not interpret the detail and draw conclusions from it. A king of flesh and 
blood (ἄνθρωπος βασιλεύτ) might act in this way ; but we should not attribute 
parallel action to God, Comp. the interpolation Ecclus. xxxiii, 26, 


17 


258 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX.1 


The statement that ὀφειλή, ‘ debt,’ is a word found ‘‘ only in N.T. Greek” 
(Mt. xviii. 32; Rom. xiii. 7; 1 Cor. vii. 3) has been disproved by the papyri. 
Deissmann gives instances, Bzblical Studies, p. 221. He has also given good 
reasons for abandoning such an expression as ‘‘N.T. Greek”: Zhe Philology 
of the Greek Bible, pp. 65, 134, 135; Mew Light on the New Testament, 

b 5ΘΊΕ 

Characteristic expressions in ch. xviii. : ἐκείνη ὥρα (1), προσέρχεσθαι (1, 21), 
ὁ πατὴρ ὁ ἐν τοῖς οὐρανοῖς (10, 14, 19), τί ὑμῖν δοκεῖ; (12), πορεύεσθαι (12), 
συνάγειν (20), τότε (21), προσφέρειν (24), σύνδουλος (28, 29, 31, 33). Peculiar: 
ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (1, 3, 4, 23), τάλαντον (24), ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος (35), 
συναίρειν (23, 24), καταποντίζεσθαι (6 and xiv. 30 only), τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον 
(8 and xy. 41 only), ἡ γέεννα τοῦ πυρός (10 and ν. 22 only); peculiar to this 
chapter: ἑβδομηκοντάκις (22), δάνιον (27), βασανιστής (34). The verb 
ἀποδιδόναι is frequent in the N.T., but it is specially common in Mt, as 
compared with other Gospels; in Mt. 18 times, in Mk. once, in Lk. 8 times, 
in Jn. never. In this chapter it is frequent (25, 26, 28, 29, 30, 34). The 
phrase cuvalpew λόγον (23, xxv. 19) has been thought to be a Latinism, 
rationem conferre, ‘compare accounts.’ Zahn quotes a Faytim papyrus 
(Grenfell, Hunt, Hogarth, p. 261, No. 109, 6), συνῆρμαι λόγον τῷ πατρί. 


XIX. 1-XX. 34. THE JOURNEY OF THE MESSIAH 
THROUGH PERZZA TO JERUSALEM. 


For a moment the three Synoptists are once more together. 
Mt. xix. 1, 2=Mk. x. 1, and side by side with these we may 
place Lk. xvii. rr. The Third and Fourth Gospels give a great 
deal of material which belongs to this period of Christ’s Ministry. 
But the so-called ‘‘Perzean section” in Lk. (ix. 51—xix. 28) 
contains a good deal of material which evidently belongs to an 
earlier period, and we do not know enough about the details to 
say how his narrative is to be fitted into that of Jn., who, with 
great vividness, in chs. vii.-xi., tells a great deal that illuminates 
the whole situation, especially with regard to the circumstances 
which made the rejection of Jesus by the nation, and His death 
at the hands of the hierarchy, certain. Even without supernatural 
foresight, it might have been possible to see that, so far as 
immediate success was concerned, the mission of Jesus to His 
countrymen would fail, and that the only thing which could save 
Him from a violent catastrophe was flight. But it was impossible 
for Him to fly. He knew the Scriptures, especially those con- 
cerning Himself (Lk. xxiv. 27), as no one else knew them. He 
knew that the Messiah must suffer in order to reign, and must 
conquer by dying. The Scriptures must be fulfilled, which was 
only another way of saying that the will of God must be done. 

The opening words of this chapter are peculiar to Mt. (see 
on vii. 28). After concluding a group of Christ’s sayings, he 
commonly passes on to the next subject with the formula ‘when 
He finished these words’ (vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xxvi. 1), and 
here he alone expressly states that Jesus ‘departed from Galilee, 


ΧΙΧ. 1-19] THROUGH PERAA TO JERUSALEM 259 


although it is implied in the other narratives.! It is His last 
departure from Galilee. Until after the Resurrection Christ does 
not visit it again. He crosses the Jordan, and in this more remote 
region, where He was less well known, He resumed His work of 
teaching and healing. Mk. says that He taught, Mt. that He 
healed.2. The multitudes had reassembled, and He did not send 
them empty away. Mt. perhaps thought that it was more neces- 
sary to record that Jesus healed than that He taught; the latter 
might be assumed. What follows in these two chapters (xix., xx.) 
is evidence of the teaching, especially of the training of the 
Twelve. 


XIX. 3-12. The Question of Divorce. 


The Pharisees are now Christ’s determined enemies, bent 
upon His destruction; and they come to Him once more to 
endeavour to make Him commit Himself in some fatal way. It 
was known that He condemned divorce (v. 31, 32), and thus 
seemed to put Himself into opposition with the Mosaic Law, 
which allowed it (Deut. xxiv. 1); here, therefore, was a field in 
which it was likely that they might obtain material for fruitful 
charges against Him. We must study Mk. x. 2-12, if we wish 
for a clear and consistent account of Christ’s teaching respecting 
divorce. All Jews held that divorce was allowable; the only 
question was, for what ‘unseemly thing’? The stricter Jews 
said that unchastity on the wife’s part justified divorce ; the less 
strict said that mere dislike sufficed. According to Mk. and Lk., 
Christ forbade divorce altogether. The permission to divorce a 
wife for grave misconduct was conceded by Moses because of 
the low condition of society in his time; but now men ought to 
return to the primeval principle that marriage is indissoluble.’ 
According to Mt., both here and in ν. 31, 32, Christ agreed 
with the stricter Jews; an unchaste wife might be divorced, and 
the husband might marry again. It has been shown in the 
comments on v. 31, 32 that it is improbable that Jesus taught 
this ; and we may suspect that both ‘for every cause’ (3) and 
‘except for fornication’ (9) are insertions made either by the 
Evangelist or in the authority which he is using in addition to 

1 ‘Juda’ here seems to be used in the wider sense of Palestine, the land 
of the Jews; comp. xxiv. 16. 

2 In xiv. 14- ΜΚ, vi. 34 Mt. makes this change in Mk.’s narrative ; and 
in xxi. 15 he does much the same, for there ‘the wonderful things that He 
did’ takes the place of ‘ His teaching’ (Mk. xi. 18). On the insertion ‘ there’ 
(ἐκεῖ) see on xxvii. 47. 

% “The word (σκληροκαρδία) denotes the rude nature which belongs to a 
primitive civilization. This principle of accommodation to the time in Scrip- 
ture is of inestimable importance, and of course limits finally the absoluteness 


of its authority. We find that the writers were subject to this limitation, 
as well as their readers” (Gould on Mk. x. 5). 


260 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XIX.1-12 


Mk. Whoever inserted the words would think that they must 
have been meant, and that therefore it was right to make the 
meaning perfectly clear. The remark of the disciples (10) con- 
firms the view that Christ forbade divorce, even in the case of the 
wife’s unchastity. If that was His decision, their remark is 
intelligible. It would then mean that marriage is a dangerous 
condition, if a man cannot free himself from an adulterous wife. 
But, if He taught that the divorce of an adulterous wife was 
allowable, then their remark would mean that marriage is a hard 
lot, if a man may not get rid of a wife whom he dislikes ; and it 
is hardly likely that they can have meant this. After being 
Christ’s disciples so long, they would not hold that what even 
Jews of the stricter school of Shammai maintained respecting the 
marriage-tie was an intolerable obligation. See Allen, p. 205; 
Salmon, p. 394; Montefiore, p. 691. 

Christ’s argument for the indissoluble character of the original 
institution of marriage is that at the Creation God made one man 
and one woman, each for the other. He did not make more 
women than men, so as to provide for divorce. On the contrary, 
He created a relation between man and wife more intimate and 
binding than even that between parent and child. The ‘and 
said’ which Mt. (5) introduces between the two quotations from 
Genesis is not in Mk. (x. 6, 7), and is incorrect. In Gen. ii. 24, 
‘For this cause shall a man leave,’ etc., are the words of Adam, 
not of the Almighty. With the conclusion, ‘What therefore God 
hath joined together, let not man put asunder,’ the discussion 
with the Pharisees is closed. Christ then retired into ‘the house,’ 
and there the disciples renewed the discussion. This break in 
the conversation is obscured in Mt., who, as usual (ix. 1, xv. 15, 
21, XvVil. 19), omits the detail about going indoors, and here 
makes ver. 9 part of the address to the Pharisees, whereas in 
Mk. it is said privately to the disciples.} 

There is no parallel in Mk. or Lk. to the remarkable passage 
respecting celibacy (10-12), and we have no means of knowing 
the source of it. It does not seem to belong to the context in 
which Mt. has placed it; for it appears strange that our Lord, 
after pointing out that marriage was ordained by God for the 
human race from the very first, and that man ought not to sever 
a tie ordained by God, should at once go on to admit that, after 


1 Instead of, ‘ And if she herself shall put away her husband, and marry 
another, she committeth adultery,’ Mt. has, ‘And he that marrieth her when 
she is put away committeth adultery.’ Mt. may have made this change be- 
cause there was no provision in the Jewish law for a wife to divorce her 
husband (Josephus, “4:2. XV. vii. 10). But καὶ ὁ ἀπολελυμένην γαμήσας 
μοιχᾶται is omitted in δὲ DL and other important witnesses; it may come 
fon v. 32. See Wright, Syzopszs, p. 99; E. Lyttelton, /ZS., July, 1904, 
p. 621, 


XIX. 13-15] THROUGH PER&A TO JERUSALEM 261 


all, those who can do without it should avoid marriage. Never- 
theless, it may be that He thought it well to justify His own 
example and that of the Baptist. Marriage was instituted by 
God for the good of mankind, and is open to all. But no one 
is obliged to marry, and there are some who believe that they 
can live more spiritual lives by remaining single. 

If we may assume that vv. 11, 12 were uttered in reply to the 
disciples’ remark in ver. 10, then ‘ All do not receive this saying’ 
probably means that it is not given to every one to see that it is 
not good to marry, ‘this saying’ referring to the remark of the 
disciples. This is more probable than a reference to Chris?’s 
saying that marriage ought to be regarded as indissoluble. The 
passage must be compared with our Lord’s declaration that His 
disciples must be ready, if the call should come, to part with 
everything that they possess, even with life itself, for His sake. 


XIX. 13-15. The Blessing of the Little Children. 


Mt. follows Mk. in placing this incident between the 

discussion about marriage and the story of the rich young man, 
Πα Lk. so far agrees with Mk. in placing the incident 
immediately before that of the rich young man. It took place 
in the house, for it was ‘as He was going forth into the way’ 
(Mk. x. 17) that the rich young man came to Him. As Salmon 
conjectures (p. 395), the children brought to Him may have 
been the children of the house. On the previous occasion 
(xviii. 2), when He took a child as an object-lesson, this took 
place ‘in the house’ at Capernaum ; and it is unlikely that a 
child had to be sent for from the outside. Here also we may 
imagine that the children of the house “ were brought to Him to 
say good-night, and receive His blessing before being sent to 
bed.” But Lk. (xviii. 15) seems to have understood the matter 
otherwise: ‘And they brought unto Him also their babes.’ 
Both Mk. and Lk. say that the children were brought ‘that He 
should touch them,’!_ Mt. is much more full: ‘that He should 
lay His hands on them and pray’; and this is a reasonable 
inference from the fact that He did lay His hands on them and 
bless them (Mk. x. 16). 

Jesus so frequently laid His hands on those whom He 
healed, that the parents naturally thought that it would be an 
advantage to their children to have them touched by the great 
Healer. To the disciples this seemed intolerable. They knew 
how His time was invaded and His physical strength taxed by 
the numbers that were brought to Him to be cured of their 

1 The verb προσφέρειν is frequent of bringing the sick to Christ: iv. 24, 
viii. 16, ix. 2, etc. Mk, has it here (x. 13). 


262 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XIX. 13-15 


ailments. And here people were bringing to Him children that 
were perfectly well, and asking Him to touch them. Such 
demands upon Him were quite unreasonable. Moreover, how 
was He to continue His instructions to themselves, if He was 
interrupted in this way?! 

Mk. says that our Lord ‘was indignant’ (ἠγανάκτησεν) at 
this remonstrance on the part of His disciples. ‘The expression 
is nowhere else used of Him, and it is evidence of the depth 
of His displeasure at seeing His own disciples trying to keep 
little children from Him. Mt., as usual (xii. 13, ΧΙ]. 58, 
xvi. 4), omits the record of human emotion on the part of 
Christ. ‘Cease to forbid them’ (μὴ κωλύετε) is in all three. 
So also is ‘of such’ (τοιούτων, not τούτων) Not those particular 
children, nor all children, but those who are childlike in 
character, are possessors of the Kingdom :? it specially belongs 
to them. The genitive is possessive, as in ‘theirs is the 
Kingdom of Heaven’ (v. 3, 10), a point which is inadequately 
expressed by ‘of such.’ ‘To such belongs the Kingdom’ would 
be better. How shocking, therefore, to try to prevent them 
from approaching the King! Mt. has already (xviii. 3) inserted 
the equivalent of ‘Whosoever shall not receive the Kingdom of 
God as a little child, he shall in no wise enter therein,’ and he’ 
therefore omits the words here; and having just stated that the 
children were brought to Christ that He might Zray over them 
(13), he omits (what Mk. alone records) that ‘He took them 
in His arms and blessed them.’ “This beautiful scene calls for 
reflection and imagination rather than for discussion” (Burton 
and Mathews, p. 209). The whole incident is another illustration 
of the candour of the Evangelists in recording what is to the 
discredit of the disciples. Our confidence in the general trust- 
worthiness of their evidence is thus confirmed. ‘Ihe practical 
importance of this exquisite enforcement of the principle that the 
Kingdom has little children among its worthiest possessors is 
incalculable. See Tertullian, De δαῤέ, 18, with Lupton’s notes. 


XIX. 16-30. The Rich Young Man. 


It is possible that the order of the three subjects, Marriage, 
Little Children, and Wealth, is chronologically correct: the 
three incidents were connected in time and place, and they 
followed one another in the way in which they have been 
recorded. But the grouping may be artificial, In that case 


1 This remonstrance of the disciples is against the view that it was only 
the children of the house coming to say good-night. 

2 As Jerome says: ‘¢aldum,’ ut ostenderet non elatem regnare sed mores, 
‘Turn and become’ (στραφῆτε καὶ γένησθε) is in Mt. only. 


a —— ΠΡ ee 


XIX.16] THROUGH PERAA TO JERUSALEM 263 


it was natural to take the teaching about children after the 
teaching about marriage, and that leaves the subject of riches 
to come last, which is also its right place in logical order. 
There is, however, yet another point of connexion between the 
teaching respecting children and the teaching respecting wealth. 
They supplement one another. The children, like the toll- 
collector in the parable, were nearer the Kingdom than they 
could suppose themselves to be. The rich man, like the 
Pharisee, was farther from it than he supposed himself to be. 
In the preference shown to the children, those who could not 
be harmed by being exalted were exalted; in the humiliation of 
the rich man, one who could be benefited by being abased was 
abased. 

The subject of this narrative is often called “the rich young 
ruler.” Lk. alone says that he was a ‘ruler’ (ἄρχων) ; Mt. alone 
suggests that he was ‘young’ (νεανίσκος). We do not know 
what Lk. means by ἄρχων. It may be an inference from his 
great wealth, that he was a leading man in society. Mt., who 
omits ‘from my youth’ after ‘ All these things have I observed,’ 
may merely have substituted ‘the young man’ (6 νεανίσκος) for 
‘from my youth’ (ἐκ νεότητός pov): for it is in this verse (20), 
and not at the outset, that he calls him ‘the young man.’! 
But the man’s action in running up and kneeling to Jesus (Mk.) 
indicates youthful eagerness, and his behaviour throughout 
harmonizes well with the common view that he was young. 

In this narrative we have for the first time the expression 
‘eternal life’ (ζωὴ αἰώνιος), which is far more frequent in Jn. 
than in the Synoptists. See Dalman, Words, p. 156. 

As Mt. omitted Christ’s entering into the house after the 
discussion on divorce with the Pharisees, he here omits that 
‘ He was going forth into the way’ when the rich man came to 
Him. This is of small moment; but in what follows we have 
one of the most remarkable of Mt.’s divergences from .the 
narrative of Mk. The fact that Mk. is here supported by Lk. 
may mean no more than that Lk. copied Mk., but even that 
shows that, at any rate, Lk. knew of no reason for differing from 
Mk. And, judged on its own merits, the narrative of Mk. has 
the appearance of being original, while the differences in Mt. 
look like deliberate alterations. On the one hand we have: 
‘Good Master, what shall I do that I may inherit eternal life? 
And Jesus said to him, Why callest thou Me good? None is 
good save one, even God’ (Mk., Lk.). This is quite simple and 
intelligible. We have a natural form of address, a naturally 

11 is, however, to be noted that νεανίσκος is not necessarily a lad; a 


man of 30 or 35 might be so called. Therefore a νεανίσκος might say ‘from 
my youth’ without absurdity. 


264 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XIX.17 


worded question, and an answer which exactly fits the form of 
address. On the other hand we have: ‘Master, what good 
thing shall I do, that I may have eternal life? And He said 
to him, Why askest thou Me concerning that which is good? 
One there is who is good’ (Mt.). Here the epithet ‘good’ has 
been transferred from the address, where it is in place, to the 
question, where it is superfluous. Of course, any action that 
could win eternal life must be a good action. Moreover, the 
reply does not fit the question, although ‘good’ has been 
inserted into the question in order to prepare for the reply. 
The rich man had not asked about good in the abstract, and 
‘One there is who is good’ is irrelevant. To say that God 
alone is good is much to the point, when some one else has 
been called good; but the statement is out of place, when this 
has not been done, but merely a question has been asked about 
the good conduct which wins eternal life. 


Justin Martyr twice quotes the passage, with variations from both 
Gospels and from himself. ‘‘ When one came to Him and said, Good 
Master, He answered saying, None is good but God alone who made all 
things” (Afo/. i. 16); and again: ‘* When one was saying to Him, Good 
Master, He answered, Why callest thou Me good? One is good, even My 
Father which is in heaven” (Z7y. 101). In the Clementine Homilies we 
have: ‘* Do not call Me good, for one is good, even the Father in heaven” 
(xviii. 3). And this addition of ‘the Father in heaven’ is found also in 
Trenzeus, of the Marcosians (I. xx. 2). But the fonn of question, ‘ Master, 
what good thing shall I do?’ is found in a fragment of the Gospel according 
to the Hebrews quoted by a Latin translator of Origen’s Commentary on 
Matthew. The opening words of the fragment would lead one to suppose 
that in this Gospel wo rich men approached our Lord on this occasion. 
“<The other of the rich men said to Him, Master what good thing shall I 
do and live? (Dixit ad eum alter divitum, Magister, quid bonum Saciens 
vivam?) He said to him, Man, perform the Law and the Prophets (comp. 
Mt. vil. 12, xxii. 40). He answered Him, I have performed them. He 
said to him, Go, sell all that thou hast and distribute to the poor, and come, 
follow Me. But the rich man began to scratch his head, and it pleased him 
not. And the Lord said to him, How sayest thou, I have performed the 
Law and the Prophets, seeing that it is written in the Law, Thou shalt love 
thy neighbour as thyself, and behold many of thy brethren, sons of Abraham, 
are clad with dung, dying of hunger, and thy house is full of many good 
things, and there goeth not out at all anything from it tothem. And He 
tured and said to Simon His disciple, sitting by Him, Simon son of John, 
it is easier for a camel to enter through the eye of a needle than for a rich 
man into the Kingdom of heaven.” See Camb. Bibl. Ess. p. 191. 


These are not the only reasons for believing that Mk., who 
is certainly prior to Mt., has here got the original narrative, 
from which Mt. has intentionally diverged.t It is quite easy to 
see why Mt. has made these alterations. He could not bring 
himself to record that Jesus said, ‘ Why callest thou Me good? 


1 Somewhat illogically he has left εἷς and ἀγαθός unchanged ; it should 
be ἕν and ἀγαθόν : ‘one thing is good.’ 


ΧΙΧ. 17, 18] THROUGH PER&A TO JERUSALEM 265 


None is good save one, even God.’ We have seen how readily 
he omits anything which seems to detract from the Divine 
nature of the Messiah, such as His asking for information or 
exhibiting human emotion, and how he loves to emphasize the 
wonderful features in His mighty works. Such a writer would 
feel that our Lord’s reply, as recorded by Mk., was likely to 
mislead, and was not likely to be correctly worded ; he therefore 
substitutes what seems to him to be more probable. It is less 
easy to see why Mt. has dropped the common expression 
‘inherit eternal life’ for the less figurative ‘ Aave eternal life.’ 


The divergencies of Mt. from Mk. have caused much confusion in the 
text. In later authorities the text of Mt. has been in various ways 
assimilated to that of Mk. See WH. ii. Aff. pp. 14, 15; Salmon, Zhe 
Human Element, pp. 398-403. 


The explanation of ‘Why callest thou Me good? None is 
good save one, even God’ belongs to the commentator on Mk. 
(see Swete). Suffice to say here that Jesus was neither 
questioning His own sinlessness, nor intimating that the rich 
man ought not to call Him good unless he recognized Him as 
Divine. The rich man could not have appreciated either of 
these points. Rather, He turns his thoughts from his own 
inadequate standard of what may win eternal life to the standard 
of the Divine Goodness. Not any one act, however supremely 
excellent, can secure eternal life, but only excellence of 
character.! As the most generally known summary of what that 
character should be, Jesus refers him to the commandments, in 
which God has revealed His will. This last point is more 
clearly brought out in Mt. than’in Mk. ‘If thou wilt enter into 
life, keep the commandments.’ Mt. alone represents the man 
as needing to ask, ‘What kind (ποίας) of commandments ?’? 
And he alone makes him ask, ‘What lack I yet?’ It almost 
looks as if Mt. had formed an unfavourable opinion of the rich 
man, and that this colours his narrative. 

Mt. agrees with Mk. as to the order of the commandments, 
which is that familiar to ourselves: ‘Thou shalt not kill, Thou 
shalt not commit adultery.’ But Lk., in agreement with Cod. 
B in Deut. v. 17, reverses this order, as also does S. Paul in 
Rom. xiii. 9 (also the Nash Papyrus); and both Philo (De 


1 The rich man is at the old legal standpoint, that he has to do some- 
thing, not that he has to de something. Yet it is a step in advance that he 
recognizes that mere abstention from transgression is not enough. 

* Perhaps he expected some new commandments of special requirements, 
But it is not certain that ποίας here has its full force: it perhaps means no 
more than ‘Which?’ See Blass, p. 172. In ‘What lack I yet?’ (τί ἔτι 
ὑστερῶ ;) Mt. transfers to the rich man Christ’s ‘One thing thou lackest’ 
(ἔν σε ὑστερεῖ), 


266 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ΧΊΧ. 19, 20 


Decalogo, 24 and -2) and Tertullian (De Pudic. 5) base an 
argument on the fact that adultery is forbidden before murder 
is forbidden. S. James (ii. 11) seems also to have had this 
order.t That Lk. should agree with S. Paul in such a matter 
is not surprising. All three accounts represent our Lord as 
placing the fifth commandment last. This may be for the 
sake of emphasis, because it had been so habitually evaded by 
the device of Corban (xv. 4, 5). This rich man had no doubt 
previously consulted the official teachers upon the question 
which he put to Jesus, and had evidently not been satisfied 
with their answers. Of course, they would insist on the ten 
commandments as the rule of life, and Jesus in doing the same 
reminds him of the paramount importance of the duty to parents. 
Mt. here makes a surprising addition to the quotations 
from the decalogue: ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself’; 
an addition which is wanting both in Mk. and Lk. Mt. has it 
again, xxil. 39 = Mk. xii. 31 = Lk. x. 27, where Christ gives 
it as a summary of the second table of the commandments. 
It comes from Lev. xix. 18; comp. Mt. vii. 12. It is not 
likely that it was spoken on this occasion. The rich man, 
though superficial and self-seeking in his desire to obtain 
eternal life, is really in earnest about himself; and if Christ 
had added, ‘Thou shalt love thy neighbour as thyself,’ he 
would hardly have replied so readily, ‘All these have I 
observed.’ He could say that quite honestly with regard to 
the letter of the five commandments which Jesus had quoted. 
Was he relieved that Christ required no more from him 
than these familiar duties? Or was he disappointed that 
Jesus had nothing more inspiring to give him than what he 
had often heard from the Scribes? Perhaps he expected, and 
even hoped, to be told of some difficult task which his great 
wealth would enable him to accomplish. Even if he never 
said, ‘What lack I yet ?,’? his statement about his past amounts 
to an invitation to Christ to say something more. Is one who 
keeps the commandments sure of eternal life? And our Lord 
at once responds to the invitation. He neither confirms nor 
contradicts the man’s estimate of his past life. Granting that 
it is all true, there is still something wanting,—freedom from the 
fascinations of ‘the deceitfulness of riches’ (xiii. 22). Can he 
liberate himself from these toils ? 
Both Mt. (see above on ver. 14) and Lk. omit the intensely 
1 As to the form of the prohibitions, Lk. agrees with Mk. in having μὴ 
φονεύσῃς, K.T.A., While Mt. follows the Septuagint in Exod. xx. and Deut. v. 
in having οὐ φονεύσεις, κιτιλ. Mt. commonly assimilates the quotations in 
Mk. to the Septuagint. See Swete, Zitroduction to the Septuagint, p. 234. 
2In Mk. x. 21 it is Christ who says to him, ‘One thing thou lackest’ 
(ἕν σε ὑστερεῖ) ; in Lk, xviii, 22, ἔτι ἕν σοι λείπει. 


XIX, 21,22] THROUGH PERAA TO JERUSALEM 267 


interesting statement of Mk. that ‘Jesus looking upon him 
loved him.’! The look was a penetrating look, recognizing in 
the man much that was good and lovable along with much 
that was otherwise, and the record of it is the touch of an 
eye-witness. - It comes from one who knew from personal 
experience how penetrating a look from Christ could be 
(Lk. xxii. 61); and the same compound verb (ἐμβλέπειν) is 
used both there and here. Jesus sees enough in the rich 
man’s character to make Him yearn to have him as a per- 
manent disciple. Here was a conscientious observer of the 
Law, who, nevertheless, was not quite satisfied with himself, 
and who at times had misgivings that he was not doing all 
that God required of him. Would he be equal to doing what 
would be necessary, if he was to become a follower of Christ ? 

Mt., having anticipated, ‘One thing thou lackest,’ substitutes 
for it ‘If thou wouldest be perfect’; but in what follows the 
three reports agree (21). There are two parts in the reply 
given to the man: one to sell and give to the poor, the other 
to follow Christ ; and the one is preparatory to the other. The 
first is the direct answer to the man’s question, ‘What must I 
do to inherit eternal life?’ This is manifest from the promise, 
‘and thou shalt have treasure in heaven,’ which evidently refers 
to inheriting eternal life. When the man has freed himself from 
the ties which bind him to earth, he will have entered the 
narrow gate and the straitened way which lead unto life (vii. 14), 
and will be ready to follow the ‘Good Master.’ 

How are we to regard this charge to sell everything and 
give to the poor? Was it a mere /es¢ for that particular 
questioner, to see whether he was equal to the good report 
which he had given of himself? Was it a vu/e for him and for 
all who would live the highest life? a so-called ‘counsel of 
perfection’? Was it simply a condescension to the man’s own 
point of view? He wanted to do some heroic act to secure 
eternal life: let him give all his riches to the poor. It is quite 
certain that our Lord could not have meant that either he or 
any one else can win eternal life by any such act. Our Lord 
does not promise him that. He tells him that in heaven he 
shall have treasure to compensate for what he has sacrificed in 
this world, but He does not say that the sacrifice will secure 
admission to heaven.2, The charge to make the sacrifice was 
the medicine which the man’s soul required. He had too 


1 Other points in which Mt. and Lk. agree against Mk. are in the 
omission of ‘Do not defraud,’ and in the substitution of ‘heard’ (dxovcas) 
for ‘his countenance fell’ (στυγνάσαε). 

3 Comp. ‘ Bestow thy treasure according to the commandments of the 
Most High, and it shall profit thee more than gold’ (Ecclus, xxix. 11), 


268 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW |XIX. 22 


much attachment to wealth and the things which wealth can 
buy, and he had too little sympathy with the poor. The hard, 
self-denying life of a follower of Jesus was the bracing that 
was needed to make a really noble character. Hitherto his 
virtues had been negative rather than positive. He had been 
free from gross sins, but he had had no lofty ideal. To live 
with Jesus Christ, and learn of Him, would be the best cure 
for that, and would lead to eternal life. 

We must not overlook the fact, however, that the Lord’s 
last word to him was not a charge, but an invitation: ‘Come, 
Follow Me.’ We may reverently believe that the man’s own 
good was not the sole motive for Christ’s treatment of him. 
Jesus really wanted him. He saw in him the making of another 
Apostle, a Barnabas, if not a Paul; and He longed to have 
the strengthening of this lovable, but weak character. For 
His own sake, as well as for the man’s, He gave him that 
affectionate look and asked him to come. 

‘He went away sorrowful’ (λυπούμενος), because of the 
greatness of the demand, perhaps also because of the weakness 
of his own will. He had not expected so stern a reply, and 
he had not expected to be unequal to anything that the Good 
Teacher would require. But we are not told that he was 
indignant, or made any angry reply. He went back to the 
wealth which had not satisfied him before, and which would 
satisfy him still less now; and perhaps the good seed was in 
the end not wholly choked by the deceitfulness of riches. 

“The self-sacrifice which the Lord imposed on this wealthy 
enquirer asserts in principle the duty of the rich to minister 
to the poor; the particular form which this ministry must take 
varies with the social conditions of the age” (Swete). In this 
age experience has taught us that giving money or food or 
clothing to the poor often does more harm than good; but 
that fact does not justify the comfortable doctrine that those 
who have wealth may keep it to spend upon themselves. It 
is still as true as ever it was that the way to eternal life is self- 
sacrifice, and that readiness for complete surrender is the one 
condition of true discipleship. Disciples who may come upon 
their own terms (viii. 21) are easily won, and easily lost. If 
Christ had lowered the terms for the sake of gaining this man 
and his wealth, He might for a time have had one more 
enthusiastic follower, with the risk of having later a second Judas.? 

1 Comp. ἀκούσας ταῦτα ἐλυπήθη (.Szmeon 11. 10). 

2 The treatise known as Who ἐς the Rich Man that zs saved? (τίς ὁ 
σωζόμενος πλούσιος ;), by Clement of Alexandria, is commended as an excel- 
lent patristic exposition of the teaching conveyed by this incident in reference 


to the problems of modern life. It is ‘‘simple, eloquent, and just” 
(Westcott). See Swete, Patréstic Study, p. 49. 


XIX. 23-25] THROUGH PERAA TO JERUSALEM 269 


All three Evangelists record certain comments which our 
Lord made upon the n2h man’s refusal to comply with His 
counsel: and here again the deviations of Mt. (23-30) from 
Mk. (x. 23-31) are of great interest. Mt. both abbreviates and 
augments Mk. In his chief omission he is followed by Lk., 
but not in his chief insertion (28). The chief omission is the 
disciples’ amazement at Christ’s words (about the difficulty for 
a rich man to enter the Kingdom) and His reply to their 
amazement: ‘Children, how hard is it [for them that trust in 
riches] to enter into the Kingdom of God’ (Mk. x. 24). The 
words in brackets are probably an early insertion, as the evidence 
of δὶ Β and other witnesses shows, and it is not probable that 
our Lord uttered them. They do not give the right kind of 
explanation of the hard sayings. What is needed, if trusting 
in riches is to be mentioned, is of this kind: ‘How hard is it 
for those who have riches not to trust in their riches; and ye 
cannot trust in God and in Mammon.’ It is tmpossible for 
those who trust in riches to enter the Kingdom. The saying 
without the words in brackets gives a much more probable 
explanation. It is hard for azy one to enter the Kingdom 
(vii. 13, 14), and therefore specially hard for the rich. ‘That 
Mt. knew of this second statement of the case is shown by the 
‘again,’ which comes from Mk. 

Both the ‘camel’ and the ‘needle’s eye’ are to be under- 
stood literally. “To contrast the largest beast of burden known 
in Palestine with the smallest of artificial apertures is quite in 
the manner of Christ’s proverbial sayings” (Swete). Comp. 
‘Strain out a gnat and swallow a camel.’ It is not necessary 
to suggest that ‘camel’ may mean a rope, or that the ‘needle’s 
eye’ was a name sometimes given to a small side-gate for foot- 
passengers.! Shakespeare combines the two ideas :— 


**Tt is as hard to come, as for a camel 
To thread the postern of a small needle’s eye.” 
Richard 11., V. v. 16, 17. 


But he is taking the needle’s eye literally, as we may believe 
that Christ did. 

Here Mt. follows Mk. in recording the astonishment of the 
disciples (25). ‘Who then can be saved,’ if rich men cannot? 
Possibly the Twelve still had the belief that earthly prosperity 
is a sign of piety, for God has promised to bless the substance 
of the religious man. But, in any case, experience had taught 
them that nearly all men either possess wealth or strive to possess 
it. If, therefore, to be wealthy is to be excluded from the 
Kingdom, who can be saved? 

1 No ancient expositor adopts this method of explanation. 


270 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [ XIX. 26, 27 


Once more we have Christ’s penetrating look (ἐμβλέψας), 
which this time Mt. does not omit (25). Man cannot, but 
God can, break the spell which wealth exercises over the 
wealthy. He had done it in Matthew’s case; He would do 
it in that of Zacchzeus (Lk. xix. 1-10). May we believe that 
the rich young man was lingering near enough to hear this,— 
that though he could not free himself, yet God might still free 
him? It is possible that these comments of Christ were partly 
meant for him. His great mistake had been in supposing that 
he could with his own powers do what was required to gain 
eternal life. Peter characteristically takes up the conversation 
on behalf of the Twelve. He would like to be sure that what 
God alone can do has been done in their case. They left all 
that they possessed, and followed Him; are they on the road 
to the Kingdom? He asks no question, but his statement 
evidently invites a reply, and Mt. interprets it as asking, ‘ What 
then shall ze get?’ 

In the reply to this Mt. makes his chief addition to the 
report in Mk. ‘Ye which have followed Me, in the regeneration 
when the Son of Man shall sit on the throne of His glory, ye 
also shall sit upon twelve thrones, judging the twelve tribes of 
Israel.’ Lk. has no such words here, but has a similar saying 
xxli. 30.2. The meaning in both places seems to be the same. 
The disciples had shared the privations of the Messiah, and 
they would share the glories of His Kingdom. ‘They had joined 
with Him in proclaiming this Kingdom to Israel, and they will 
join with Him in having royal power in Israel, sharing His rule 
over all those who have received the good tidings respecting the 
Kingdom; comp. x. 6, ΧΙ. 41, 42. And the generous return 
for all that has been sacrificed in this world for Christ’s sake 
(x. 39, XVl. 25) is not confined to the Twelve. ‘very one’ 
who for His Name’s sake has given up what is most dear to 
him, shall receive a hundredfold in return. In Mk. and Lk. 
it is expressly stated that this hundredfold compensation will 
be made in this world (ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ) in addition to eternal 
life in the world to come. But in Mt. nothing is said about 
this world; the whole reward is regarded as taking place ‘in the 


1 ¢ What then shall be ows reward ?’ is the exact force of the question. 

2 Very possibly Lk. has the historical context, and Mt., as often, has put 
together sayings on the same subject, independently of the time of utterance. 
‘Judging’ does not mean sentencing the wicked, which would be painful 
work, and no reward, but ruling the good. Comp. Judg. iii. 10, x. 2, 3, 
xii. 9, II, 13, 14, etc.; also Book of Enoch: ‘*‘ When they see that Son 
of Man sitting on the throne of His glory” (Ixii. 5); “1 will bring forth 
clad in shining light those who have loved My holy Name, and I will seat 
each on the throne of his honour” (cviii. 12). Comp. the Testament of 
Judah xxv. I. 


XIX. 29,30] THROUGH PERAA TO JERUSALEM 271 


regeneration.’ Consequently Mt. omits ‘with persecutions,’ for 
if the manifold recompense is transferred to a future life, there 
can be no thought of persecutions. ‘The regeneration’ means 
the new Genesis, the creating of a new heaven and a new earth, 
as was expected by the Jews. As ‘of the dead’ is commonly 
to be understood after ‘the resurrection,’ so ‘of all things’ or 
‘of the universe’ is to be understood after ‘the regeneration’ 
(ἡ παλινγενεσία). Comp. Is. Ixvi. 22; Rev. xxi. 1, 5. But 
even in Mt. the ‘hundredfold’ (or ‘manyfold,’ BL and other 
witnesses) is not identified with ‘eternal life! The latter 
refers to the man himself, the former to his environment. 


After ‘or father, or mother,’ 8 CK X and Syr-Cur. add ‘or wife,’ which 
is found in Lk. xviii. 29, but not in Mk. x. 29. It is probably not genuine 
here, but might have been omitted in BD, Syr-Sin. and Old Lat. because 
of the childish idea, mentioned by Jerome, that it seemed to imply that the 
man was to have a hundred wives in the regeneration. As if the preceding 
words implied that he was to have a hundred fathers and a hundred mothers ! 
He has sacrificed joys of kinship in this world ; he will be repaid a hundred- 
fold in the next. Mt.’s omission of ἐν τῷ καιρῷ τούτῳ (Mk., Lk.) is re- 
markable. 


The saying ‘first being last and last being first’ (30) is 
found here in Mt. and Mk. But Lk. omits it here and has 
it in a different context in xiii. 30, while Mt. repeats it in 
xx. 16. We infer that it was a saying which our Lord uttered 
more than once. Like so many of His sayings, it is capable 
of various applications.?. In this place we may interpret it in 
two ways. We may refer back to the rich man who had such 
a leading position and say, that many who in this world are 
ranked among the first will hereafter be among the last, because 
they were unwilling to sacrifice temporal advantages to gain 
eternal life; while many, who by surrendering everything here 
have placed themselves among the last, will hereafter be found 
among the first. Or, we may refer to the more immediate 
context of Peter's remark (27) and regard the saying as a 
rebuke to his self-complacency. Self-sacrifice is excellent, but 
it must be accompanied by humility. To plume oneself upon 
having surrendered everything is to vitiate everything. Spiritual 
pride is fatal, and even Apostles must remember that there will 


1 There is a similar difference of reading in the Testaments: ‘‘ He that 
shareth with his neighbour (μεταδιδούς, as in Lk. iii. 11) receiveth manyfold 
more from the Lord” (Zebulon vi. 6); where some texts read ἑπταπλάσιον 
for πολλαπλασίονα. See Dalman, Words, p. 67. Here, as in xvi. 25, Mt. 
omits ‘and for the Gospel’s sake,’ probably as being superfluous. All three 
are different here, and perhaps ‘for My sake’ (ἕνεκεν ἐμοῦ) was the original 
of all. 

2 It may be applied to Jews and Gentiles having their positions reversed ; 
but that is not the meaning here. 


272 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ΧΚΧ. i 


be many who will equal them in self-sacrifice and in devotion 
to Christ. The parable which follows seems to fit the second 
of these interpretations. ‘St. Peter had attempted to stipulate 
for a reward for the sacrifices which he and his brethren had 
made ; and he is taught by this parable that, while every promise 
made would be amply fulfilled, yet they who had made no 
stipulation might receive a greater reward” (Salmon, Zhe Human 
Element, p. 417). The reward is open to all true workers for 
Christ without distinction. To have been earliest in the field 
confers no exclusive right to special blessings. 

If there is this close connexion between these verses (27-30) 
and the parable which follows them, then the division of the 
chapters here is singularly unfortunate. But the evil has been 
remedied in our present Lectionary, for these verses and the 
parable are read in Church as one lesson (4 Feb. and 6 Aug.). 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xix. : ὅρια (1), ἐκεῖ (2), προσέρχεσθαι (3, 16), 
προσφέρειν (13), πορεύεσθαι (15), ἐκεῖθεν (15), καὶ ἰδού (16), θησαυρός (21), 
σφόδρα (25), τότε (13, 27), ἰδού (27). Peculiar: ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (12, 
14, 23); peculiar to this chapter: μεταίρειν (1), εὐνουχίζειν (12 ὁ25). 

Again we have instances of Mt. having the aorist where Mk. has the 
imperfect: προσηνέχθησαν, ἐπετίμησαν (13), for προσέφερον, ἐπετίμων (Mk. 
x. 13). Comp. ἐπετίμησεν, ἔκραξαν, ἠκολούθησαν (xx. 31, 34) for ἐπετίμων, 
ἔκραζεν, ἠκολούθει (Mk. x. 48, 52). 


XX. 1-16. The Labourers in the Vineyard. 


This parable almost rivals that of the Unrighteous Steward 
in the number of difficulties which have been found in it, and 
in the number of interpretations which have been suggested for 
it! In both cases difficulties have been imported into the 
parable by insisting upon making the details mean something. 
In each case there is one main lesson conveyed by the story, 
and everything else is mere background and frame for the 
picture. It may be lawful to suggest meanings for the features 
in the background and the frame; but we must not insist on 
these as being intended as lessons, and we need not be surprised 
if these interpretations of details lead us into perplexity. The 
lesson of the Unrighteous Steward is that we must use temporal 
blessings to win eternal life. If an unrighteous steward was 
commended by his earthly master for his prudence in providing 
for his future by a fraudulent use of what had been committed 
to him, how much more will a righteous servant be rewarded 
by his heavenly Master for providing for eternity by a good use 
of what has been committed to him? In this parable the 
meaning is equally simple. God keeps His promises to those 
who serve Him, but He remains Master in His own world. 

1 See Sanday, Zxfosttor, Ist series, iii. pp. 82-101, 


ΧΧ. 1-160] THROUGH ΡΕΚΖΕΑ TO JERUSALEM 273 


He is the sole judge of what each servant ought to receive. 
No one receives less than has been promised, but many 
receive more; and in these uncovenanted awards there is much 
that, in man’s eyes, seems to be unfair. But ‘God sees not 
as man seeth’; and ‘shall not the Judge of all the earth do 
right ?’ 

There is no need to find a separate meaning for those who 
were called at the different hours of the day. An agreement 
was made with those who were hired early; the others trusted 
to the householder’s fairness. And at the time of payment only 
those with whom an agreement had been made, and kept, found 
fault. It is implied that the others were well satisfied with re- 
ceiving full pay. We have, therefore, only two classes to 
consider: those who came early, and those who came later; 
or, those who grumbled, and those who did not. 

As to the householder’s fairness, there can be no question. 
He kept faith with those who made an agreement with him, and 
he was the sole judge of what the work of the others was worth 
to him. Time was precious, and labour became increasingly 
valuable as the day went on. Fresh and vigorous workers would 
be specially valuable. But the best of those who came late could 
not claim more that a full day’s wage, and the householder did 
not think it fair to pay less. It is quite possible that considera- 
tions of this kind may enter into the distribution of spiritual 
rewards ; but all that the parable teaches is that to have entered 
God’s service early gives no claim to more than He has promised, 
and that it ill becomes a servant of His to question His justice. 
The parable takes no account of those who deliberately postpone 
entering God’s service in order to shorten the work to be done 
for Him. A// the labourers came as soon as they were called; 
and of those who came last it is expressly stated that they had 
had no previous opportunity of working, 

There is no difficulty in the thought that some, who are really 
God’s servants and work for Him, at times murmur against Him. 
The argument, if they were members of the Kingdom, they would 
not murmur, and if they murmured, they could not have been 
members of the Kingdom, is not valid. Even Apostles murmured 
at times. 

There is more difficulty as to the way in which the words 
which precede the parable as a text, and conclude it like a moral, 
are to be fitted to it. How does the parable illustrate the saying 
about the last being first, and the first last? It is quite in- 
adequate to say that those who began to work last were paid 
first. That trifling advantage has no meaning in the parable. 
It was necessary for the development of the story that those with 
whom an agreement had been made should be paid after the 

18 


274 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XX. 15, 16 


others. If they had been paid first and sent away, there could 
have been no murmuring ; and the murmuring is needed to bring 
out the lesson. Neander maintains that ‘‘the words, ‘The last 
shall be first, and the first last’ cannot possibly be the punctum 
saliens of the parable ; in it the last are not preferred to the first” 
(Life of Christ, § 240, p. 385). But the words say nothing about 
the last being preferred to the first; they say that the one shall 
be as the other. We are not to understand that the first and the 
last are to change places, but that they are to be on an equality, 
the one being treated as the other is treated. In the distribution 
of rewards no distinction will be made between first and last. 
The devoted servant in the twentieth century may equal the 
devoted servant in the first. The devoted servant of half a 
lifetime may equal the devoted servant of a whole lifetime. 

No parable can teach all the details of the truth with 
which it is primarily concerned. It has been objected that the 
murmurers are not punished for their murmuring ; they receive 
only a gentle remonstrance, and get their pay just as the others 
do. But is a rebuke from Him nothing? And, although He 
inflicts no punishment, yet there is the punishment which they 
inflict upon themselves. They get the reward that was promised 
them; but they have lost the power of enjoying it. The dis- 
contented are never happy, and jealousy is one of the worst of 
torments. Heaven is no heaven to those who lack the heavenly 
temper; and these murmurers will have no pleasure in their 
reward, until they can accept it with thankfulness. From this 
point of view the first and the last may be said to have changed 
places. Those who came first to the vineyard had the least joy, and 
those who came last had the most joy, in the reward given to all. 


The parable is instructive in another way in telling us that at that time a 
denarius was the common wage of a day labourer. The equivalent coin was 
offered by Tobit as a daily wage (Tob. v. 15), and was evidently meant as a 
good wage. Therefore (see on xviii. 28), although a dexarzus contained less 
silver than a shilling, it must have been equal to two shillings of our money, 
or even more. For ordinary purposes the demariws and the drachm (Lk. 
xv. 8) were treated as equivalent, and both were in circulation along with 
the tetradrachm=shekel (xvii. 24, 27). But the official coin of the Roman 
Empire was the devariws, and in government business the dvachm was only 
three-quarters of a denarius. See Hastings, D&., art. ‘Money,’ pp. 427, 
428 ; Madden, Hist. of Jewish Coinage, pp. 245-247. While the day was 
divided into hours, the night was divided into watches. We do not read of 
definite hours of the night. 

‘For many are called, but few chosen’ (16) may safely be treated as an 
interpolation from xxii. 14. The words are an early insertion (C D N, Latt. 
Syrr. Arm. Aeth., Orig.); but they are omitted in the best texts (δὲ BL Z, 
Agyptt., and editors). They have no point here with reference either to the 
parable or to what follows. It illustrates the caprice of the AV. that the 
saying is translated here, ‘ For many ὅδ called, but few chosen,’ and in xxii. 
14, ‘ For many ave called, but few ave chosen.’ 


XX. 18-18] THROUGH PER&A TO JERUSALEM 275 


In ver. 13 there are two differences of reading which are not often noticed. 
For οὐκ ἀδικῶ σε Syr-Cur. has μὴ ἀδίκει με, ‘Do me no wrong,’ or perhaps 
‘Trouble me not’ (Lk. xi. 7); and for συνεφώνησάς μοι (δὲ BCDN etc.) 
various authorities have συνεφώνησά σοι (1, Ζ 33, Syr-Sin. Sah. Copt.). 
Comp. Jn. viii. 57, where for ‘hast Thou seen Abraham’ (A BCD etc.) a 
few ancient authorities read ‘hath Abraham seen Thee’ (δὲ, Syr-Sin. Sah.). 
Nestle, Zextual Criticism, p. 254. 

With ver. 15 comp. Prov. xxiii. 6, 7, with Toy’s notes; Pirge Aboth, 
ii, 13, 15, with Taylor's notes; and with the parable as a whole comp. 
** Faithful is the Master of thy work, who will pay thee the reward of thy 
work ; and know that the recompense of the reward of the righteous is for 
the time to come” (/#rge Adoth, il. 19). See Montefiore, pp. 700 f. 


XX. 17-19. Repeated Announcement of the Passion. 


This is commonly called the ‘47rd announcement, but it is 
the fofrth of those which are recorded (xvi. 21, xvii. 12, 22), and 
there may have been others. As usual (viii. 27 = Mk. iv. 41; 
avi. 4.— Mk, ix. 5,6; xvii. 23 = Mk. ix. 32; xix..23 = Mk. x, 
23, 24), Mt. spares the Twelve by omitting their astonishment 
and fear. Mk. here says: ‘Jesus was going before them: and 
they were amazed; and they that followed were afraid.’ Lk. 
follows Mt. in omitting this, and probably for the same reason ; 
but in Mk. we have Peter’s recollection of his personal 
experience. ‘They that followed’ perhaps includes more than 
the Apostles, and this would explain Christ’s taking the Twelve 
apart (κατ᾽ ἰδίαν) ; the others who were following were not to 
hear this last prediction of what was to befall Him at Jerusalem. 
In Mt. the taking apart is not explained, for we are not told that 
any but the Twelve were present. Nowhere is the amazement 
(ἐθαμβοῦντο) of the Twelve or the fear of those who followed 
explained: we may suppose that there was something in our 
Lord’s manner, as He walked on in front of them, which inspired 
these feelings. 

Previously Christ had merely said that He ‘must’ ( δεῖ, xvi. 
21) or ‘is about to’ (μέλλει, xvii. 12, 22) suffer; but now He 
says that He is actually on His way to the city where this is 
to take place, and in this sorrowful journey He includes the 
disciples with Himself: ‘we are going up to Jerusalem.’ And 
here He expressly states that, although it is the Sanhedrin who 
will condemn Him to death, yet it is the Gentiles who will 
execute the sentence, and thus intimates that He will be 
crucified and not stoned (Jn. xviii. 31, 32). Consequently, Mt. 
thinks himself justified in substituting ‘crucify’ for ‘kill’; and 
he again corrects ‘after three days’ into the more accurate ‘on 
the third day’; but contrast xii. 40 and xxvii. 63. Lk. follows 
Mt. in making this correction. 

All three Evangelists mention that Christ spoke of His going 


276 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XX. 18-20 


up to Jerusalem for His suffering and death; and it is possible 
that He now for the first time mentioned where these amazing 
things were to take place. Mt. indeed inserts ‘go unto 
Jerusalem’ in the first announcement (xvi. 21), but neither Mk. 
nor Lk. have any mention of the place until now. Yet the 
statement that He was to suffer in the Holy City would hardly 
come as a surprise to the Twelve, for they knew that there His 
chief opponents had their headquarters.!_ It was perhaps the 
fact that they knew Jerusalem to be so dangerous for Him that 
caused their amazement when they saw that He was bent upon 
going thither ; and it was perhaps this same fact which made the 
sons of Zebedee anxious about their own prospects in the 
Kingdom, which they believed to be at hand, but the nature of 
which they still strangely misunderstood. By his favourite 
‘Then’ (τότε) Mt. closely connects their request with the 
preceding announcement. 


The AV. translates the same verb (παραδοθήσεται, παραδώσουσιν) 
differently in vv. 18, 19: ‘shall be betrayed unto’ and ‘shall deliver Him 
to’; the RV. has ‘shall be delivered unto’ and ‘shall deliver Him unto.’ 
Similarly, in Mk. ix. 31 the AV. has ‘is delivered into the hands,’ while in 
Mt. xvii. 22, which is parallel, it has ‘shall be betrayed into the hands’ ; 
comp. xxvi. 2. ‘Deliver up’ is the better translation, the question as to 
God’s delivering Him up as a sacrifice, or Judas’s delivering Him up to His 
foes, being open. 


XX. 20-28. The Request of the Sons of Zebedee. 


It seems strange that soon after the sad announcement which 
Jesus had just made once more (and this time with more detail 
as to His approaching sufferings than had been given in the 
earlier predictions), two of His most intimate disciples should 
trouble Him with a petition for their own advancement in the 
Kingdom which He is about to inaugurate. It is impossible 
that, after Peter’s remonstrance and Christ’s stern rebuke of him 
for it (xvi. 22, 23), two of those who had been with Him on the 
Mount and had received a special announcement of the Passion 
(xvii. 12), should still be in ignorance as to what that prediction, 
which had just been repeated, meant. But they had recently 
been confirmed in their ideas about the Kingdom by the 
declaration that they were to sit on thrones and rule the tribes of 
Israel (xix. 28), and they had not forgotten that. Once more 
the question arises as to who are to be greatest among these 


1Jn xvi. 21 and xvii. 22, 23 there is less detail than here. Here Mt. omits 
the spitting, though he records it as having taken place (xxvi. 67, XXVll. 30), 
while Lk., who does not record it, mentions it here (xviii. 32). In xvii. 22 
the betrayal is added, and here other details are added: it is probable that 
the prediction became more definite as His hour drew nearer. 


XX. 20-22] THROUGH PERAA TO JERUSALEM 277 


rulers, and James and John believe that their prospects are good. 
They are nearly related to the Messiah, for their mother Salome 
was the sister of His Mother (comp. xxvii. 56 with Mk. xv. 40 
and Jn. xix. 25). This, combined with their special intimacy 
with Him, ought to give them some preference. 

It must remain doubtful whether Mk. is more exact in saying 
that the two brothers made the petition in person, or Mt. in 
saying that they acted through their mother. Mt. may have 
believed that it was their mother’s doing, and that it would be 
more creditable to the two Apostles to express this belief, in 
spite of Mk.’s silence respecting her share of the transaction :} 
or he may have had independent information. His story is the 
more credible of the two. It is more likely that a mother’s 
ambition would take the lead in such a matter than that the two 
brothers should do so. But we may believe that all three were 
in unison about it. Our Lord’s question about the cup assumes 
that the brothers know what their mother has been asking. If, 
for obvious reasons, they let His Mother’s sister plead their 
cause, He makes His appeal to them, not through her, but 
direct. 

Neither mother nor sons had considered that the sufferings 
and death which the Messiah predicted for Himself were the 
road to the Kingdom. He must suffer 7” order to reign. Still 
less had they considered that those who desired to reign with 
Him must be ready to suffer with Him. Hence they did not 
know what they were asking, when they begged to have their 
thrones nearest to His. This He proceeds to bring home to 
them. In language which recalls the ‘cup of God’s fury’ (Is. li. 
17, 22; comp. Jer. xlix. 12), He asks whether they are able to 
drink of the cup which He is about to drink; and they at once 
reply that they are able (22).2. As in the case of the rich man’s 
profession of obedience to the commandments (xix. 20), our 
Lord does not question the brothers’ confident profession of 
courage (comp. xxvi. 35), nor does He blame it; nor again does 
He deny that there will be differences of rank in the Kingdom. 


1 There is the possibility that at the time when S. Matthew's Gospel 
was published, the consideration in the Church of James and John was so 
high that there was a desire to throw some of the responsibility for this 
demand from the Apostles on their mother” (Salmon, p. 420). Possibly this 
feeling caused Lk. to omit the incident altogether. On the change from 
active (alrofea, 20) to middle (αἰτεῖσθε, 22) see J. H. Moulton, Gram. of 
N.T. Gr. p. 160. 

* The true text of Mt. omits the parallel about ‘the baptism that I am 
baptized with,’ either as being mere repetition, or possibly as being some- 
what obscure. But the picture of suffering as an overwhelming flood is 
common (Ps. Ixix. I, 2, cxxiv. 3, 4), and Christ had used the metaphor 
of baptism before (Lk. xii. 50). Mt. inserts μέλλω to make the cup refer 
to Gethsemane, 


278 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XX. 28, 24 


With regard to the former, He tells them that their profession 
will be realized ; and, with regard to the latter, that it rests with 
the Father to dispose of the honours of the Kingdom. 

The prediction with regard to their sharing His cup was 
fulfilled respecting James, when he was put to death by Herod 
Agrippa 1., A.D. 44 (Acts xii. 2). Respecting John, it was fulfilled 
in various ways: imprisonment (Acts iv. 3, v. 18), beating 
(v. 40), and exile (Rev. 1. 9). That John, like James, was put 
to death by the Jews, was ferhaps stated by Papias (Georgius 
Hamartolus and the De Boor fragment), but this looks like an 
invention to make the fulfilment of Christ’s prediction similar in 
the case of both brothers.1 The stories that he drank poison 
and was immersed in boiling oil without being harmed cannot be 
relied upon, though they go back to the second century. 

The reservation respecting the right-hand and _ left-hand 
places is rightly rendered in the AV.: ‘is not Mine to give, but 
(it shall be given to those) for whom it has been prepared.’ The 
‘but’ (ἀλλα) does not mean ‘except’ (εἰ μή). Christ does not 
mean that He can only give it to those for whom it is ordained ; 
but that the assignment is not in His hands, but in those of His 
Father. To make this quite clear, Mt. adds after ‘for whom it 
has been prepared’ the words ‘by My Father,’ which is quite in 
his manner (vil. 21, X. 32, Xl. 27, Xil. 50, XVI. 17, XVlil. 10, 19). 
On the use of ‘prepare’ respecting the Divine counsels see 
Dalman, Words, p. 128; Hatch, bzblical Greek, pp. 51-55. 
With regard to the limitation which our Lord here puts upon 
His own power we may compare the similar limitations stated 
Mk. xiii. 32 and Acts i. 7. - Here, as there, He makes no 
revelation as to what the Divine decree is. 

Perhaps the Ten had expected that Christ would reprove 
the ambition of the sons of Zebedee more severely; but the 
attempt to gain an advantage by private solicitation was enough 
to provoke their indignation against James) and John.? 
Emulation and jealousy, which had been already rebuked 
(xviii. 2 ff.), and perhaps more than once, are stili rife among the 
Apostles. Lk., who omits this incident, transfers Christ’s rebuke 
to one of the discourses which preceded the arrest in Gethsemane 
(xxii. 24-27). It is not likely that this contrast with Gentile 
‘methods οἵ government (25) was made more than once, and the 


1«¢There is no sufficient. evidence to cast serious doubt on the universal 
tradition that 5. John died peacefully at Ephesus in extreme old age. The 
attribution to Papias of the statement that John and James were killed by 
the Jews rests on very slender authority” (J. Arm. Robinson, Zhe Historical 
Character of St. John’s Gospel, p. 79). 

2 Both at ver. 20 and at ver. 24 Mt. omits the names of the brothers, 
whereas Mk. gives the names in both places. Mt. alone uses the strange 
expression ‘mother of the sons of Zebedee’ ; comp. xxvii. 56. 


XX. 25-28] THROUGH PERAA TO JERUSALEM 279 


occasion given by Mt. and Mk. is more likely to be historical 
than that chosen by Lk. The rebuke to the Ten is as gentle as 
that to the two brothers, and in substance it resembles that 
already given (xviii. 2-5). The road to promotion is the road 
of humility, and he who desires to rule must first learn to serve. 
This is a complete reversal of the common idea of the relations 
between ruler and subject ; it is the ruler who has to serve his 
subjects rather than they him. 

The Gentiles are probably chosen in order to make the 
contrast between the disciples and other organizations as great 
as possible. There was not so much difference between Jewish 
and Gentile potentates as regards the matter in question. In 
both there was a tendency to despotism. The details of the 
Saying are not quite clear. The meaning seems to be that the 
Gentiles are tyrannized over by rulers and their underlings, and 
that the tyranny of the underlings is worse than that of those 
who are supreme, the ‘them’ in both cases being the Gentiles. 
The despotism of Emperors and Kings is great, but that of 
proconsuls and satraps is worse. Yet the second ‘them’ might 
refer to ‘the rulers.’ Emperors and Kings lord it over the 
people; but the proconsuls and satraps manage to control the 
Emperors and Kings. The former interpretation, however, is 
more probable. In any case, the extremely rare word used for 
‘exercise authority’ (κατεξουσιάζειν) is evidence that Mt. and 
Mk. cannot be independent of one another. 


‘Not so is it among you’ (26). Both here and in Mk. ‘is’ (BDZ) is 
more probable than ‘ shall be’ (δ CLX). At the moment when Christ spoke, 
the disciples’ frame of mind was that of the Gentiles, and hence there was a 
temptation to change the present into the future: ‘they would learn better 
in time.’ But Christ is speaking of their ideal, of that which He has set 
before them by His own example; for He is their Master, yet He serves. 
The ‘is’ was quite true of that ideal ; but copyists have altered it into ‘shall 
be’ in order to harmonize with the ‘ shall be,’ twice repeated, which follows. 
And here again there is confusion of reading in both Gospels between ‘ shall 
be’ (8 C Ὁ ΚΙ, M, Latt.) and ‘let him be’ (BEG H S V); so in ver. 27. 
Lut the evidence is differently distributed in the two Gospels, and also in the 
two places (26, 27) in this Gospel. 


There is a right kind of emulation in the Kingdon, viz. as 
to who can be of more service to others. There may be a noble 
rivalry as to who can most completely devote himself for the 
benefit of all. And there is no other way of being great or of 
becoming first. If proof of this is needed, there is the example 
of the Messiah Himself. On a previous occasion He took a 
little child as a pattern of temper and spirit; here He takes His 
own life as a pattern of action. ‘He came not to be ministered 
unto, but to minister.’ Christ does not here speak of Himself 
as having been sent by His Father to undertake this position 


280 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [XX. 26-28 


of ministering to others, although that would have been true. 
He says, what is equally true, that He came, of His own free 
will, to do this. The example is in this way made all the 
stronger. Although unique among the sons of men, yet He 
came not to profit by their service but to render service to them, 
even to the full extreme of giving His life as a ransom for them. 

Here, as in v. 17 and x. 34, the negative description of His 
aim is not absolute. He allowed Himself to be ministered to 
both by Angels (iv. 11) and human beings (viii. 15, xxvii. 55); 
and His disciples often acted towards Him as His servants. 
Nevertheless, this was not the object of His coming into the 
world. ‘The hundreds whom He had healed and the thousands 
whom He had instructed made the number of those who had 
ministered to Him look small indeed. And if those who 
profited by His brief public life were to be counted by thousands, 
what was to be said of the millions who profited by His death ? 
This was His “supreme act of service to humanity” (Swete). 
There is a climax in this statement of the Christian ideal. To 
be great is to be the servant (διάκονος) of many; to be first is 
to be the bond-servant (δοῦλος) of many; to be supreme is to 
give one’s life for many. The word ‘ransom’ (λύτρον), though 
not rare in the O.T., is used in the N.T. only in this context ; 
and the English phrase, ‘a ransom for many,’ is not likely to 
be misunderstood. It means a ransom by means of which 
many are set free—from bondage, or captivity, or penalties, or 
sentence of death. But the Greek phrase might be misunder- 
stood; ‘a ransom instead of many’ (ἀντὶ πολλῶν) might be 
thought to mean that many ought to have paid ransom, but 
that He paid it instead of them; which is not the meaning. 
And the indefinite ‘many’ does not mean that there were some 
whom He did zo¢ intend to redeem; that He did not die for 
all, ‘Many’ is in opposition to one; it was not for His own 
personal advantage that He sacrificed His life, but one life was 
a ransom for many lives. Here, where Christ for the first time 
reveals that His death is to benefit mankind, He does not 
reveal the whole truth. Comp. 1 Tim. ii. 6 and 1 Jn. ii. 2, where 
the more comprehensive truth is stated. The ransom is paid 
to God, into whose hands the dying Messiah surrenders His 
life (Lk. xxiii. 46). The way in which this ransom sets men 
free is beyond our comprehension. 

‘The Son of Man came’ implies the pre-existence of the 
Son ; it is not a mere synonym for being born (xviil. 11; Lk. ix. 
56, xix. 10). Only once does Christ speak of being born, and 

1 See Sanday, Outlines, § 57, pp. 134-137, and the literature there quoted. 


Only here and Mk. x. 45 in the N.T. does λύτρον occur. Comp. Josephus, 
Ant, XIV. vii. 1. See H. T. Andrews in Mansfield College Essays, pp. 77 t. 


ΧΧ. 28] THROUGH PER#A TO JERUSALEM 281 


then He immediately adds the more full expression: ‘To this 
end have I been born, and to this end am I come into the 
world, that I should bear witness unto the truth’ (Jn. xviii. 37). 
And this Ministry of teaching and bearing witness continued to 
the very end: on the Cross He ministered to the robber. And 
‘to give His life’ implies that His death was the act of His own 
free will. ‘No one taketh it away from Me, but I lay it down 
of Myself. I have power to lay it down, and I have power to 
take it again’ (Jn. x. 18). Just those two things which seem to 
be beyond our own control, being born and dying, are said by 
Christ to be His own free acts; ‘the Son of Man came... to 
give His life a ransom for many’ (Maclaren).} 

Is not the combination of humility and majesty which is 
found in this saying a guarantee for its genuineness? Could it 
have been invented? Who is this, who in the same utterance, 
and in the most simple and natural way, declares that He is 
the servant of everybody, and that His single life is able to 
ransom many? There is no boasting and no manifest exaggera- 
tion in either declaration ; nothing but a calm statement of fact, 
made by One who is confident that He is saying the simple 
truth. This is God’s ‘ Righteous Servant,’ who is able to ‘justify 
many; and He shall bear their iniquities’ (Is. liii. 11). And 
His followers are to take His life as their pattern; their lives 
are to be shaped in accordance with His as lives of self-sacrifice 
and service. Comp. 2 Mac. vii. 37. 


D and @ (Codex Beratinus) with some Old Latin and Syriac authorities 
have a long interpolation after ‘a ransom for many’ (28). Syr-Sin. is 
defective, but there is not room for it in what is missing. Until the discovery 
of ® in 1868, D was the only Greek authority for the passage which runs 
thus: ‘* But ye seek from littleness to increase and [not] from greatness to 
be little. But when ye are bidden to a supper, sit not down in the superior 
places, lest a more honourable man than thou come up, and the giver of the 
supper come to thee and say, Go down lower, and thou be greatly ashamed : 
but if thou sit down in the lower place, and there come one less than thou, 
and the giver of the πρὶν shall say to thee, Go up higher, then shall this be 
profitable to thee.” he wording is somewhat different in the different 
authorities, especially in the Latin ; but the chief difference is the insertion 
in the Syriac of the ‘not’ in the second clause. A similar result is reached 
in some Latin texts by changing ‘‘ from greatness to be little” (de magno 
minut, οὐ de maximo minut, or de majort minores esse) into ‘‘ from less to 
become greater” (de minore majores fieri). D has καὶ ἐκ μείζονος ἔλαττον 
εἶναι, ® ἐλάττων. Both D and Φ have the rare word δειπγοκλήτωρ (cone 
tnvitator, or ἐς gui te invitabit) for ‘the giver of the supper.’ The ζητεῖτε 
may be either indicative (guaritis) or imperative (Syriac). Wordsworth and 
White, Vulgate, i. p. 124; Smith's DAS. iii. p. 1712; Scrivener, Besa Codex, 
p- 59; Resch, Agrapha, p. 39; Nestle, 7zxtual Criticism, pp. 255-258. 


1 On the frequency of the construction ‘ mof this duf that’ (οὐκ. . . ἀλλά) 
in our Lord’s sayings (28) see Abbott, Johan. Gr. 2593. Comp. x. 20, xix. 6, 
xx. 23, etc. It is specially frequent in Mk. 


282 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [XX. 29-34 


XX. 29-34. The Two Blind Men at Jericho. 


Here we again have all three narratives; and, although both 
Mt. and Lk. seem to be dependent on Mk., yet no two narratives 
agree. Mk. and Lk. have only one blind man; Mt. has two. 
Mt. and Mk. represent the miracle as being wrought when Christ 
was leaving Jericho; Lk. as being wrought when He was enter- 
ing it. Mt. says that He healed with a touch; Mk. and Lk. say 
that He healed with a word, but they differ somewhat as to the 
word, 

It is possible that Lk. had other authority besides Mk. 
Besides his differences, he adds that the blind man, when healed, 
glorified God, and that all the people, when they saw it, gave 
praise to God. It is possible also that in Mt. there is some 
confusion between this healing of Bartimzeus and the healing of 
two blind men in a house (ix. 27-31). In both cases the blind 
men greet Jesus as the ‘Son of David,’ and in both cases Mt. 
mentions that in healing them Christ touched their eyes. This 
is all the more remarkable in this case, because Mk. says nothing 
about touching, and elsewhere Mt. omits the Ephphatha miracle 
with the touching of the ears and the tongue. ‘This confusion 
with another miracle might account for Mt.’s two blind men; 
but in any case we must compare his two demoniacs among the 
Gadarenes, where Mk. and Lk. mention only one. As he did 
not know the name of the second blind man, he omits the name 
of Bartimzeus. But he is given to omitting names. He twice 
omits the names of the sons of Zebedee (xx. 20, 24), and he 
omits the name of Jairus (ix. 18). 

These differences between the three accounts are of little 
moment, except for the instruction of those who think that they 
are bound to believe that every statement in Scripture must be 
historically true. What clearly emerges from the narrative is 
that in the neighbourhood of Jericho a blind man called to 
Jesus for help, as He was on His way to Jerusalem for the last 
Passover; that the crowd would have kept him from Christ, but 
Christ would not allow this ; and that his sight was restored by 
Jesus. The graphic details in Mk., which are ignored by Mt. and 
Lk. as unimportant, are such as an eye-witness would remember 
and record.! 

The expression ‘Son of David’ is common in Mt. (i. 1, 20, 
ix. 27, Xl. 23, KV.) 22, XX. Ὁ, 25, xxii. 42), but here itis mall 
three, and it may be regarded as historical. It implies a belief 


1 But Mt. alone records the touching of the eyes of the blind. The 
touching does not enhance the miracle, and the addition is remarkable. 
Comp. ix. 29. And Mt. alone mentions the compassion (σπλαγχνισθεί9). 
Comp. Mk. i. 41. 


XXI. 1] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 283 


that Jesus was the Messiah. May we not believe that the man 
who repeatedly used it on this occasion, and who afterwards 
followed Jesus, glorifying God, was among those who very 
shortly afterwards shouted ‘ Hosanna to the Son of David’ at the 
triumphal entry into Jesusalem? It is possible that the crowd’s 
attempt to silence the cries to the ‘Son of David’ was dictated 
by the thought that this proclamation of Jesus as the Messiah 
was premature. ‘They had not yet made up their minds how to 
act in the matter. But they may merely have wished to prevent 
Him from being disturbed by importunate cries. ‘Lord, that 
our eyes may be opened’ shows that the necessary faith was 
there ; comp. ix. 28, 29. 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xx.: οἰκοδεσπότης (1, 12), ἰδού (18), 
τότε (20), προσέρχεσθαι (20), προσκυνεῖν (20), καὶ ἰδού (30), vids Δαυείδ 
(30, 31). Peculiar: 7 βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (1), ἑταῖρος (13), μισθοῦν (1, 7 
only). i 

Ἢ ver. 20 we have another instance of capricious rendering in the AV. 
‘Then came to Him the mother of Zebedee’s chz/dren (υἱῶν) with her 
sons (υἱῶν). 


XXI. 1-XXV. 46. THE MESSIAH’S LAST WORK 
IN THE HOLY CITY. 


This is sometimes called “the Messianic Crisis.” Jesus is 
publicly proclaimed as the Messiah, and in consequence is put 
to death ; He rises again, appears to His disciples, and promises 
to be with them ‘all the days, unto the consummation of the 
age.’ The narrative of these momentous events constitutes the 
fifth and concluding portion of the First Gospel. The chronology 
of these last days, as of the whole of our Lord’s life, is uncertain ; 
but the best authorities are disposed to assume that the year is 
A.D. 29.- But, when that is determined, the assignment of the 
events recorded to the right day of the week and month still 
remains (in various particulars) a difficult problem. It is evident 
that the Evangelists, as a rule, did not regard chronology as of 
great importance. And Mt. does not care to record details of 
journeys. He tells us nothing as to the route from Galilee into 
Perzea (xix. 1), or as to the scenes of the events there, or as to 
the route towards Jerusalem (xx. 17), or where the Jordan was 
crossed to reach Jericho (xx. 29); and now nothing is said about 
the journey from Jericho to Jerusalem. The one place men- 
tioned is no help, for we know nothing respecting Bethphage, 
not even whether it was a village or a district, for it is not 
mentioned either in the O.T., or in the Apocrypha, or in 
Josephus. In the N.T. it occurs in the Synoptists only, and 


28 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [(ΧΧΙ. 1-8 


they do not tell its position, which, however, must have been on 
or near the Mount of Olives.1 See DCG. i. p. 197. 


XXI. 1-11. Zhe Messiah's Triumphal Entry into Jerusalem. 


The Passover was at hand, and there would be immense 
numbers of pilgrims that had come to Jerusalem for the Feast. 
Of these, some would know a good deal about Jesus, especially 
those who had come from Galilee. Many more had seen and 
perhaps heard Him occasionally. But the large majority of 
those who took part in the triumphal entry must have known 
very little about Him, and perhaps had never seen Him before. 
The great enthusiasm, therefore, cannot have had any strong 
foundation, and must have been, in many cases, merely 
emotional sympathy of an unreasoning and evanescent character. 
It is probable that not a few who cried ‘ Hosanna’ at the entry 
took part in crying ‘Crucify’ a few days later. This would be 
all the more likely to happen, because those who had shouted 
in the Messiah’s honour believed that they were escorting Him 
to a throne which would restore the ancient glories of Israel. 
When they saw that nothing of the kind was going to take place, 
they would visit their disappointment upon the object of their 
previous enthusiasm. If this proclamationof His Messiahship 
(to which He consented now that His hour was come) was more 
general and more loudly voiced than the attempt to make Him 
king just a year before (Jn. vi. 15), it was for that reason all the 
more dangerous in provoking deadly hostility, without being 
substantial enough to make any resistance to those who were 
determined to put Him to death. They might sympathize with 
Him when He defeated His opponents in argument, but they 
made no attempt to deliver Him after His arrest, or to save Him 
from Crucifixion. (For the Mount of Olives see DCG. 11. 
p. 206; Deissmann, Arble Studies, p. 211. For 5. Ephraim’s 
quotation of ver. 3, ‘for ¢heér Lord they are required,’ see 
Burkitt in /ZS., July 1900, p. 569.) 

We are free to suppose that our Lord had already spoken to 
the owner of the colt when He sent the two disciples, for nothing 
in the nerrative contradicts this; but the impression produced 
by all three accounts is that Jesus had supernatural knowledge, 
by virtue of which He predicted what would happen. All three 
call attention to the exact correspondence (καθώς = ‘even as’) 
between what He had said and what took place. Mt. implies 
this: ‘they did even as He appointed,’ which they could not 

1 One may suppose that, when Mt. wrote, Bethphage was as well known 


as Bethany, or better ; for he prefers it to Bethany as a means of marking the 
scene, 


XXI.3-7] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 285 


have done, if what they found had not agreed with what He had 
foretold. ‘The owner seems to have known Jesus, and perhaps 
was a disciple; otherwise he would not have known who was 
meant by ‘the Lord,’ and would not so readily have obeyed. 
The two disciples are not named, but the details which Mk. 
alone gives suggest that one of them was Peter (comp. Lk. xxii. 8). 
Mt., who alone mentions two animals, omits that the colt was 
one ‘on which no one of men ever yet sat’ (Mk., Lk.). This 
probably indicates a royal progress (Deut. xxi. 3; Num. xix. 2; 
1 Sam. vi. 7). All four Gospels mention that the animal on 
which Christ rode was a colt (πῶλος), and the word occurs 
nowhere else in the N.T. The birth of a virgin and the burial 
in a tomb that had never before been used may be compared. 
We are not to regard Christ’s riding on an ass as a special act of 
humility: “The ass was highly esteemed as a riding beast, and 
was used by men and women of rank, as it has always been in 
the East” (Moore, Judges, p. 274). Comp. Judg. i. 14, v. 10, 
X. 4; 1 Sam. xxv. 20; 2 Sam. xvii. 23, xix. 26. What the ass 
signified was, that the entry was a feacefu/ one. This was no 
conqueror with chariots and horsemen, but a King coming to 
His people with a farewell message of peace. 

Mt. mentions both the foal and its mother, because he 
regards this as a more exact fulfilment of Zech. ix. 9.1 This is 
an error, for in the prophecy ‘a colt the foal of an ass’ (or ‘ of 
she-asses’) is mere repetition of ‘an ass’: ‘riding upon an ass, 
even upon a colt the foal of an ass’ (RV.). It is worth noting 
that Mt. inserts the prophecy (which Jn. also quotes) immediately 
after Christ’s prediction of what the two disciples will find, not 
(as we might have expected) after the procession had taken place. 
He intimates that Christ was consciously fulfilling the prophecy.” 
‘Tell ye the daughter of Zion’ looks like a recollection of Is. 
Ixii. 11, prefixed to the passage in Zechariah, either by a slip of 
memory, or perhaps deliberately, in order to give more point to 
the prophecy.’ 

But we need not suppose that Mt. overlooked the fact that 
Christ could not ride upon both animals at once, and was not 
likely to ride first on one and then on the other. Mk. says: 
‘they bring the colt to Jesus, and cast on him their garments ; 
and He sat upon him,’ which is plain enough. There is no 

1 Comp. Justin Martyr, who says that the colt was tied to a vine, in order 
to make the incident a fulfilment of Gen. xlix. 11, ‘ Binding his foal unto the 
vine’ (Afol. i. 32). 

2 In this case (comp. i. 22, xxvi. 56) the perf. γέγονεν must be Mt.’s own. 
See Lightfoot, On Reviston, p. 101. 

3 The use of ὑποζύγιον, ‘beast of burden,’ in the special sense of ‘ ass’ is 
not a ‘‘ Biblical” peculiarity. It seems to occur in papyri; Deissmann, 
Biblical Studies, p. 161. 


286 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXI.7-9 


saddle or saddle-cloth, and the disciples take off their outer 
garments (τὰ ἱμάτια) to supply the deficiency. For this Mt. has: 
‘they brought the ass and the colt, and put on them their 
garments ; and He sat upon them’ Cae er αὐτῶν τὰ ἱμάτια, 
καὶ ἐπεκάθισεν ἐπάνω αὐτῶν, where the change from ἐπί to ἐπάνω 
is to be noticed). Mt.’s idea is that the disciples put their 
clothes on both the animals, not knowing which the Lord would 
prefer. He took the colt, and sat upon the clothes. The 
wording is a little clumsy, because, while the first ‘them’ must 
refer to the two animals, the second ‘them’ might also refer to 
the two animals. But the change of preposition is perhaps 
intended to indicate a change of meaning ;! and in any case the 
Evangelist credits his readers with common sense. ‘The sarcasm 
of Strauss is misplaced. 

The example of the disciples in sacrificing their upper 
garments to do honour to the Messiah is followed by the majority 
of the crowd, who take off theirs to make a carpet in front of 
Him. To this day this is a common form of homage; see 
instances quoted in Wetstein and Robinson, es. iz Pal. i. p. 
473, and comp. 2 Kings ix. 13 of the proclamation of Jehu as 
king. 

* Hosanna’ is in Mk. and Jn., but ‘Hosanna to the Son of 
David’ is in Mt. alone. The word comes from Ps. cxviii. 25, 
26, where ‘Hosanna’ is a prayer, ‘Save, we pray,’ or ‘Give 
salvation now’; and ‘Blessed is He who cometh’ is a welcome 
to the pilgrim who comes to worship at the Feast. It would 
seem as if what had originally been a prayer had come, through 
its frequent use in shouts at the Feast of Tabernacles, to be 
regarded as an exclamation of greeting or congratulation, similar 
to ‘Hail!’. The original meaning could be made to hold in 
such an expression as ‘Hosanna to the Son of David’; but it is 
difficult to make that meaning good in ‘ Hosanna in the highest.’ 3 
The probability is that the original meaning is lost in both 
phrases, and that we are to understand some such thought as 
‘Glory to the Son of David,’ ‘Glory in the highest,’ the latter 
expression meaning that those who are in heaven join in this cry. 
Rev. vii. 9 throws some light on the subject, where the great 
multitude, with palms in their hands, cry ‘Salvation unto our 
God . . . and unto the Lamb.’ Indeed the passage may have 
been written with the thought of the triumphal entry in the Seer’s 
mind. It would seem as if Lk. understood ‘Hosanna’ in the 


1 There seems to be no example of ἐπάνω being used as riding on an 
animal ; it would perhaps be as unusual as for us to talk of riding ‘on 1 the top 
of’ a horse. 

? Weymouth suggests, ‘God save the Son of David, God in the highest 
heavens save Him!’ See Wright, Syvofszs, p. 111. 


ΧΧΙ. 10-12] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 287 


sense of ‘Glory’ rather than of ‘Save’: he has ‘ Peace in heaven, 
and glory in the highest.’ See the excellent art. on ‘Hosanna’ 
in DCG.; also Dalman, Words, p. 220. In the post-communion 
prayer in the Didache (x. 6) we have ‘Hosanna to the God of 
David,’ which in some texts has been altered to ‘Son of David,’ 
no doubt under the influence of this passage. 

In what follows, Mt. has a verse and a half which are not in 
Mk. or Lk.: ‘all the city was stirred,! saying, Who is this? And 
the multitude said, This is the Prophet Jesus, from Nazareth of 
Galilee’ (10, 11). This shows that to many, perhaps even of the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem, He was still personally unknown. The 
answer has the appearance of being exact. In spite of the cries 
at the triumphal entry, it is not said that He is the Messiah; 
that is by no means generally recognized ; but in various places, 
and especially in Galilee, He has had the reputation of being a 
Prophet (xvi. 14). 


ΧΧΙ. 12-17. The Cleansing of the Temple. 


As to the cleansing of the Temple there are several doubts. 
Did it take place more than once? If it did not, is Jn. right in 
placing it at the beginning of the Ministry, or are the Synoptists 
in placing it at the end? And are his details to be preferred to 
theirs ? 

There is nothing incredible in two cleansings. Even if there 
were two, they probably did not put an end to the evil; and if 
Jesus, after an interval of two years, found that the traffic was 
even worse than before, He would be likely to repeat the remedy. 
But, in that case, we should expect some reference on the second 
occasion to what had taken place before. Just as in the case of 
the feeding of the multitudes, the fact that the disciples are as 
perplexed about the feeding of the 4000 as about the feeding of 
the 5000, tells against the otherwise not improbable repetition of 
the miracle, so the fact that in no Gospel is there any allusion to 
more than one cleansing of the Temple, is against the otherwise 
not improbable repetition of that event. But this reasoning is 
not decisive. 

Assuming that there was only one cleansing, it is more 
probable that this Messianic act took place at the end of the 
Ministry than at the beginning of it. At the beginning, Christ 
was hardly recognized as a Prophet, and it is surprising that He 


1 The expression isa strong one: ἐσείσθη πᾶσα ἡ πόλις. Comp. the similar 
hyperbole at the arrival of the Magi: ὁ βασιλεὺς ἐταράχθη, καὶ πᾶσα 
Ἰεροσόλυμα per’ αὐτοῦ (ii. 3). It was this city multitude which a few days 
later cried ‘Crucify Him.’ The multitude which cried ‘ Hosanna’ consisted 
largely of Galilean pilgrims. 


288 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XXI. 12-14 


should thus have proclaimed Himself as the Son of God (Jn. ii. 
16) almost at the outset. But it is too much to say that “‘it is 
most improbable that Jesus could have succeeded in cleansing 
the Temple, if He had appeared there as an utterly unknown 
youth, with no following but one or two obscure friends.” He 
had the conscience, not only of the bystanders, but of the 
offenders themselves, on His side, and there is nothing surprising 
in the impressive manner of the young Reformer carrying all 
before it. Ifthe Synoptists’ date is more probable than that of 
Jn., there is nothing incredible in the latter. Moreover, there is 
the certain fact that Jn. knew what the Synoptists had written, 
and that he deliberately dissented from them. If he is not 
inserting a cleansing which they had omitted, he is quietly 
correcting them. A slip of memory on either side is possible, 
and equally remarkable instances might be quoted. We must 
be content to leave both questions open. ‘There may have been 
two cleansings; and, if there was only one, either Mk. or Jn. 
may be right. Drummond is decidedly for the Synoptists (Zze 
Character and Authorship of the Fourth Gospel, p. 61); Sanday 
is inclined to prefer S. John (Zhe Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, 
p. 149); so also Wright, Syxopsis of the Gospels, p. 113. Salmon 
thinks that we are at liberty to believe “that our Lord made His 
first protest against Temple profanation on an earlier visit to the 
sacred House, and that after an absence of a year or more, 
coming back with a number of Galilean disciples, He enforced 
His requirements more vigorously” (Human Element, p. 433). 
J. Armitage Robinson points out that, “whatever the exact 
date may have been, the relative position of the incident is the 
same in S. John as in S. Mark. In either Gospel it forms the 
first public act of the ministry tn Jerusalem. Τί it does not find 
an earlier place in 5. Mark, it is because that Gospel records but 
one visit to Jerusalem. And we may further note that in both 
Gospels this startling action is followed by a challenge to declare 
by what authority our Lord so acts; so that in Jerusalem the 
ultimate issue—His relation to God—is raised at the outset” 
(The Historical Character of St. John’s Gospel, p. 21). And the 
position of the cleansing of the Temple in Mk. determined the 
position of the incident in Mt. and Lk. In all four Gospels, 
therefore, it is ‘‘the first public act of the ministry in Jerusalem.” 

Mk. tells us that Christ ‘would not suffer that any man should 
carry a vessel through the Temple.’ Mt. omits this, but adds that 
‘the blind and the lame came to Him in the Temple; and He 


1 For ‘ robbers’ den’ (σπήλαιον λῃστῶν) comp. Jer. vii. 11. There is no 
reference to cattle raided by brigands, but simply to extortionate charges. 
Mt. has ποιεῖτε, Mk. πεποιήκατε, Lk. ἐποιήσατε. In ver. 14 there may bea 
reference to the healing of the man born blind. 


ΧΧΊ. 14-16] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 289 


healed them.’ Lk. omits both, but states that ‘He was teaching 
daily in the Temple.’ Elsewhere we have seen that Mt. prefers 
to mention healing rather than teaching: e.g. xiv. 14 = Mk. vi. 34, 
xix. 2=Mk. x. 1. The case of the man ‘lame from his mother’s 
womb’ who was laid daily at the Beautiful door of the Temple 
(Acts iii. 2), shows that there would be likely to be lame and 
blind persons in and near the Temple hoping for alms, and on 
these Jesus would have compassion. ‘The repetition of the phrase 
‘in the Temple’ in these verses (12-15) is to be noted; the 
Evangelist seems to wish to emphasize the scene. All these 
incidents connected with the great crisis in the career of the 
Messiah took place in the holiest part of the Holy City. 

The incident of the boys (παῖδες, not, as in xiv. 21, xvii. 3, 
xix. 13, παιδία) shouting ‘ Hosanna’ in the Temple, and members 
of the Sanhedrin appealing to Christ to stop them (15, 16), has 
no parallel in Mk., but Lk. has something similar respecting the 
triumphal. entry (xix. 39, 40).1 This seems to show that Mt. 
and Lk. have some source or sources of information not used by 
Mk. ‘Dost Thou hear what these say?’ probably means that 
He ought to feel that the shouting ought to be stopped, and that 
it is His place to do it. He answers their question with another : 
have they never in their lives read the eighth Psalm? In the 
quotation the Septuagint is followed in substituting ‘praise’ 
(αἶνον) for the ‘strength’ of the Hebrew. For the purpose of 
defending the boys, ‘praise’ was more suitable. ‘The children 
of Zion were joyful in their King’ (Ps. cxlix. 2). These παῖδες 
were no doubt children who had heard the shouts at the triumphal 
entry, and at the sight of Jesus in the Temple began to repeat 
what they had heard. The whole is exceedingly natural. That 
the hierarchy, who had for so long tolerated, or indeed encouraged, 
as profitable to themselves, the traffic in the Temple, should 
profess to be shocked at the shouting of the children, is as 
characteristic of them as the repetition of the Hosannas of the 
multitude is of the boys. The Evangelist treats their protest as 
genuine; it was not hypocritical assumption of anger. ‘They 
were moved with indignation’ at what they regarded as a desecra- 
tion of the sacred precincts. Although they did not mention it 
in their protest, they seem to have resented Christ’s healing in 
the Temple. Mt. says: ‘When the chief priests and Scribes saz 
the wonderful things that He did, and the children that were 
crying in the Temple... they were moved with indignation’ 
(ἠγανάκτησαν, as xx. 24, xxvi. 8). Our Lord does not stay to 


1 But here, as in xii. 23, Mt. is the only Evangelist who records the use of 
the expression, ‘Son of David,’ which occurs nine times in this Gospel 
against six times in the rest of the N.T. It is not found in-Jn. It is a 
Messianic title, and Jesus will not condemn its application to Himself, 


19 


290 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XXI. 18-26 


argue with them. He has defended the children from their 
unjust censure, and that done He leaves the murmurers and goes 
out of the Temple. 

A comparison of the two Gospels shows that Mt. puts into 
two days what Mk. distributes over three days. See Allen. Mt. 
and Lk. both put the cleansing of the Temple on the same day 
as the triumphal entry. Mk. puts the cleansing on the second 
day, after the cursing of the fig-tree. Mt. makes the withering 
of the fig-tree follow immediately. In Mk. the withering is not 
noticed till the third day. Then follows teaching, which Mt. 
places on the second day. 


XXI. 18-22. The cursing of the Braggart Fig-Tree. 


Jesus had left the city as well as the Temple and went out to 
Bethany and passed the night there (ηὐλίσθη). The expression 
perhaps means no more than that He spent the night outside 
the city ; that He spent it in the open air need not be intended. 
At the Passover, multitudes had to pass the night outside the 
walls. Mk. says that at this time ‘every evening He went forth 
out of the city’ (xi. 19). 

Mt. greatly condenses Mk.’s narrative of the cursing of the 
fig-tree. He gives just what is necessary for the drawing of 
the lesson from Christ’s action and nothing more. He does not 
even exhibit his usual interest in Peter. The expression of 
surprise at the speedy withering of the tree is attributed to the 
disciples generally, not to Peter in particular. Both Evangelists 
tell us that our Lord hungered: we are not to think that He 
expressed a desire to eat in order to teach by means of an acted 
parable. And He came to the tree expecting, on account of the 
profusion of leaves, to find fruit, although ‘it was not the season 
of figs.’ Evidently there was no employment of supernatural 
knowledge; it was not till He came to the tree that ‘He found 
nothing thereon, but leaves only.’ Then, as Mk. puts-it, ‘He 
answered and said unto it, No man eat fruit from thee henceforward 
for ever.’ It was no hasty, impatient utterance, but a sentence 
deliberately pronounced, and immediately executed.2 There is 
no contradiction here between the two narratives; but in Mt. 
the withering is noticed by the disciples (apparently) at once, in 
Mk. not till the next day. Mt. states, though Mk. does not, that 
the withering took place immediately. 


1 On the insertion of ἐκεῖ see on xxvii. 47. Mt., who omits the mention 
of Bethany, xxi. 1, is alone in mentioning it here (17). 

? « Fig-season’” seems to have been a common expression for summer. 
See Wetstein on Mk. xi. 13. 

3 For ‘immediately’ Mt. uses a word (παραχρῆμα) which is a favourite 
one with Lk., and is found nowhere else in the N.T. but in these two verses. 


XXI. 20,21] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 291 


Thus Mt., as elsewhere, enhances the marvellous character of 
the miracle, and that in two ways. He insists that the withering 
took place at once, and so rapidly that the disciples noticed that 
it followed immediately upon the uttering of the curse ; whereas, 
so far as the narrative in Mk. informs us, the withering might be 
a process that occupied some hours, and was not noticed by any 
one until the next morning. Secondly, instead of one disciple 
calling attention next morning to the condition of the tree, Mt. 
says that the immediate withering of the tree excited the astonish- 
ment of the whole company of the disciples, who collectively 
expressed their amazement. In both narratives the fig-tree is 
condemned, not for being fruitless, but for being false. In the 
fig-tree, the fruit precedes the leaves. At that early season (April) 
the fig-tree would usually have neither; but this tree, by putting 
forth a profusion of leaves, professed to have fruit; and it had 
none. There was ‘nothing thereon, but leaves only.’ As a 
symbol of moral and religious character, the tree was a deceiver 
and a hypocrite ; and for this the Lord pronounces ἃ symbolical 
judgment upon it. See Hastings’ DZ., art. ‘Figs.’ Holtzmann 
on Mk. xi. 13 treats the narrative as historical; on Mt. xxi. 19 
he says that “‘ we have here the transformation of Lk. xili. 6-9 into 
history, under the influence of Hos. ix. το. 

The fig-tree represents the Holy City, rather than the nation 
as a whole.! It is its profuse profession of zeal for God, and 
perhaps its enthusiastic welcome of the Messiah, which is con- 
demned as worthless, and worse than worthless, because it gives 
a promise of fruit which is not there: and its speedy destruc- 
tion will be the immediate consequence of these barren 
professions. 

But this is not the lesson which Christ Himself draws from 
the speedy death of the tree and the disciples’ amazement at it. 
The application of the fate of the hypocritical fruit-tree to the 
fate of the hypocritical city was not of immediate importance, and 
time itself would make it plain to the disciples when Jerusalem 
was overthrown. ‘There was a lesson that was far more urgent, 
and this was—faith in the efficacy of prayer. The disciples had 
been astonished at the quickness with which Christ’s prayer (that 
there might be no fruit from that tree henceforward for ever) had 
been answered ; and He assures them that, if they have the neces- 
sary trust in God’s power and goodness, they will be able to do 
things still more astonishing, always provided that the things to 
be done are worthy of such means of accomplishment. The 


1 Zahn, Einleitung in d. N.T. ii. pp. 443, 445. We are reminded of 
Christ's parable of the fig-tree (Lk. xiii. 6-9). The time of respite for 
Jerusalem is now past: ‘Let there be no fruit from thee henceforward for 
ever.’ The unfruitful tree, spared for a while, is now to be cut down, 


202 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXI. 21-23 


execution of the sentence on the fig-tree zvas thus worthy, and 
hence its speedy fulfilment. Comp. xvii. 20, 21, xviii. 19. 
‘Rooting up mountains’ was a metaphor for something that 
is very difficult, and our Lord may be using a figure of speech 
that was familiar to the disciples. But as He says ‘ ¢#zs mountain,’ 
which would mean the Mount of Olives, He may be thinking of 
Zech. xiv. 4: ‘The Mount of Olives shall cleave in the midst 
thereof . . . and half of the mountain shall remove toward the 
north, and half of it toward the south.’ From this and other 
instances, as the camel and the eye of the needle, the mote and 
the beam, plucking out the right eye and cutting off the right 
hand, we see that, in His popular teaching, our Lord was accus- 
tomed to use forcible, and what we might call extreme language. 
Comp. Lk. xvi. 6, where a tree takes the place of the mountain.! 
In all three Gospels the marvellous transfer is from the land to 
the ‘sea,’ and the charge given in connexion with it is to ‘have 
faith? St. Paul points out that this faith, by itself, will not make 
a Christian ; there must be love also (1 Cor. xiii. 2). And the 
addition which Mk. makes here (xi. 25) to some extent provides 
for this; whoever prays for forgiveness must himself ‘forgive, if 
he have aught against any one.’ This additional saying need not 
be regarded as an afterthought or an early gloss. It is quite in 
place as a warning against the supposition that curses on our 
fellow-men will be ratified by God. Christ’s symbolical impreca- 
tion on the fig-tree does not sanction our uttering vindictive 
imprecations on one another. Only if our prayers are for good 
objects will faith secure their fulfilment. No justification for the 
damnatory clauses in the Quicungue vult can be found here. 


XXI. 23-27. The Question of the Messiah's Authority. 


Mk. tells us that Christ was walking in the Temple when 
His authority was challenged by members of the Sanhedrin ;? 
Mt. and Lk. state that He was teaching there. It is possible 
that His protest against the profanation of the Temple was 
not confined to a single occasion; on subsequent days He 
may have had to interfere in a less conspicuous manner. Both 
Mk. and Lk. say that ‘He degan to cast out’ the buyers and 
sellers, and Mk. continues to use imperfects: ‘He would not 
allow,’ ‘He used to say’ (xi. 15-17). But, even if our Lord’s 
protest was made on one occasion only, the Sanhedrin would 


1See Sanday, Zhe Life of Christin Recent Research, p. 27. 

2 Mk. and Lk. give the three components of the Sanhedrin, chief priests, 
scribes, and elders; Mt. omits the scribes and says ‘the elders of the people.’ 
All three have ‘by what #zzd of authority (ἐν ποίᾳ ἐξουσίᾳ). Was it ecclesi- 
astical or civil, human or Divine? On ‘elders’ see Deissmann, p. 154. 


XXI. 23-27] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 293 


be likely to challenge it. His followers had proclaimed Him 
to be a King. Did He claim to have royal authority for His 
peremptory interference with the Temple usages?! If so, that 
might provoke the Roman procurator to take rigorous measures 
against the whole populace. But anxiety for the people, and 
for themselves as the responsible rulers, was probably not the 
main reason for the challenge. Like the question about 
tribute, it was intended to entrap Jesus. If He disclaimed 
royal authority, He would be discredited with His followers ; 
if He claimed it, He could be handed over to Pilate. 

But, whether or no it was their object to place Jesus in a 
dilemma, it is clear that His reply placed them in one. Yet 
it was not a mere device on His part to elude their challenge. 
The answer to His question would lead to an answer to their 
question; and, as the teachers of Israel, it was their place to 
speak first. John’s repentance-baptism represented his whole 
position as a reformer; he had insisted upon it as a preparation 
for the Messianic Kingdom; and he had proclaimed Jesus as 
the Messiah. The people had hailed John with enthusiasm 
as a Prophet, and perhaps his violent death at the hands of 
Antipas had intensified this enthusiasm. All this was known 
to the Sanhedrin ; and as the official leaders of the Jews they 
ought long ago to have decided whether John was a Prophet 
or not. If he was a Prophet (and they did not dare to say 
that he was not), then there was no doubt as to the authority 
which Jesus had, for a Prophet had declared Him to be the 
Messiah.2 But sooner than admit this they made the shameful 
avowal that they had not yet been able to decide whether 
John was a Prophet or not. What use, therefore, would it 
have been to tell them whether Jesus was the Messiah or not? 
If John’s proclamation of Him did not convince them, what 
effect would His own assertion have? They had publicly 
declared that they were unable to settle such questions, thus 
abdicating their authority in religious questions of the highest 
moment, and they do not venture to press Him further. But 


1 * Doest these things’ shows that it was His action that was primarily 
challenged; but the plural, ‘these things,’ perhaps includes His teaching 
as well as His cleansing of the Temple. ‘ One question’ (λόγον ἕνα) perhaps 
means one decisive question. To answer one question with another was 
specially common with the Rabbis. 

*The way in which Mt. gets rid of the broken construction in Mk, is 
somewhat naive. Mk. has: ‘But should we say, From men—they feared 
the people.’ Mt. has: ‘But if we shall say, From men; we fear the 
multitude.’ The hierarchy would ¢A7n this, but they would not confess it 
even to one another. Lk. more reasonably substitutes: ‘all the people will 
stone us.’ With similar improbability Mt. makes the rulers answer the 
question : ‘What will the lord of the vineyard do unto those husbandmen δ᾽ 
(40, 41). See Camb, Bibl, Ess. pp. 430 f, 


294 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [ΧΧΙῚ. 28-32 


they had gained thus much advantage,—He had refused to 
disavow all claim to the authority of a King, just as He had 
previously refused to silence those who had hailed Him as 
King. The case against Him with regard to the Romans was 
so far strengthened. And in both cases He had refused to 
disavow all claim to the authority of the Messiah. That 
strengthened the case against Him with regard to the San- 
hedrin. ‘The incident shows how strong the influence of the 
Baptist still was among the people; and it continued (Acts 
xix. 1--7). 


XXI. 28-82. The Parable of the Two Sons. 


Mk. says that ‘He began to speak to them in parables,’ 
but he gives only one parable, that of the Wicked Husbandmen.' 
Mt., as so often, gives us a triplet,—three parables tending to 
enforce the moral of the withered fig-tree, that the empty pro- 
fessions of the Jews, and especially of the hierarchy at Jerusalem, 
will provoke severe judgments. Probably all three parables 
come from the Logia, and they are all three addressed to the 
members of the Sanhedrin (28, 33, xxii. 1). Although silenced, 
these official opponents have not dispersed. With the intro- 
ductory ‘What think ye?’ comp. xvii. 25, xvili. 12, XXxil. 42. 

The address, ‘Son,’ or ‘My child’ (τέκνον), is not so much 
an expression of affection as a claim to obedience: a father 
has a right to dispose of his child’s labour. Comp. Lk. xvi. 25. 
The first son asserts his own will: ‘I don’t choose to’ (od 
θέλω). The second son evidently refers to his brother’s refusal 
in his elliptical ‘I, sir,’ with great emphasis on the pronoun 
(ἐγώ, κύριε). “2, of course, mean to do as you bid me,’ the 
emphatic pronoun expressing a contrast with his brother, and 
the ‘sir’ being an expression of ‘submission.’ 


The Greek text is very confused. Some important authorities place the 
son who acquiesced but disobeyed before the son who refused but afterwards 
obeyed; and this necessitated the change in ver. 31 of ‘The first’ into 
‘The second’ or ‘The last.’ The change of order is ancient, and was 
probably caused by an ancient misinterpretation (Origen, Chrysostom, 
Athanasius, Jerome) of the two sons. They were supposed to represent the 
Jews and the Gentiles; and, as the Jews (who professed obedience but 
rejected the Messiah) were called before the Gentiles (who disobeyed the 
law but accepted the Messiah), the son who acquiesced but disobeyed was 
placed first. This arrangement (B, Boh. Arm. Aeth.) is less probable than 
the one in our Bibles (NC DL XZ, Latt. Syrr.). It makes the emphatic 
ἐγώ in ἐγώ, κύριε, pointless, for the other son has not yet said that he will 
not go. 
ee ΌΘ σ ΞΘ 5555 555555595 

1 Comp. Mt. xiii., where we have several parables that are not in Mk., 
although Mk. indicates that he has not recorded all the parables that were 
spoken then. 


ΧΧΙ. 28-32] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 295 


But D and Syr-Sin., while supporting the more probable order, make 
the hierarchy reply, ‘The last,’ instead of ‘The first,’ thus approving the 
conduct of the son who said, ‘I go, sir,’ but went not. According to this 
reading, therefore, Christ’s opponents, in order to spoil the argument of the 
parable, gave an absurd answer. As being the more difficult reading, this 
combination of the right order with the wrong reply has great interest, but 
it is not likely to have been the original text, although both Merx and 
Wellhausen adopt it. For further details see Hammond, Zextual Criticism 
of the N.T. pp. 114-116; Allen, pp. 228, 229; Bruce, Zhe Parabolic 
Teaching of Christ, pp. 438-446; Zahn, p. 618, note, 


It is clear from Christ’s concluding words that the members 
of the Sanhedrin whom He is addressing are the son who pro- 
fessed obedience and disobeyed, and that flagrant sinners, such 
as the toll-collectors and harlots, are the son who refused 
obedience and afterwards obeyed: there is no thought of Jews 
and Gentiles. Even the most flagrant sinners take the lead of 
the hypocritical Pharisees in entering the Kingdom of God,! 
secure as the latter felt themselves to be of their salvation, 
and great as was their disdain of the sinners. ‘Go before you’ 
or ‘take the lead of you’ (προάγουσιν ὑμᾶς) leaves it doubtful 
whether the hierarchy will enter the Kingdom or not. If they 
repent and believe, they will do so; but the sinners, who 
have repented, are before them in this. It is a signal example 
of a reversal of the world’s judgments. Not only the Pharisees 
themselves, but Jewish opinion generally, would have held 
that their prospects of entering the Kingdom were of the best, 
while those of toll-gatherers and harlots were infinitesimal. But 
the first are last, and the last first. 

The reference to the Baptist’s preaching (32) looks back to 
the question about his baptism (25). By his ‘coming in the 
way of righteousness’ is meant, not the rectitude of his own 
life, but the right path of life which he inaugurated. He pointed 
out the way of salvation, and invited all to come and enter it. 
He ‘taught the way of God’ (xxii. 16), and the Pharisees had 
come and listened to him (iii. 7), but they had refused to accept 
his teaching; whereas the toll-gatherers and harlots, who had 
made no profession of religion, had accepted it. 


The Greek text of the last clause of ver. 32 is doubtful. Ought we to 
read οὐ (NCLXATI) or οὐδέ (B, Vulg. Syrr. Copt. Aeth.) before 
μετεμελήθητε, or neither (D, Syr-Sin.); or ought we to transfer the negative 
to πιστεῦσαι (c e), guod non credidistis? Or shall we omit the whole clause 
(A), which is hardly necessary after οὐκ ἐπιστεύσατε ait@? The omission of 
the negative is probably accidental. So also is the omission of the clause 


1 We may suppose that ‘Kingdom of God’ was the expression in the 
source which Mt. used, and for some reason he has not changed it to 
‘Kingdom of Heaven.’ Comp. xii. 28, xix. 24. It may be a mere 
oversight, 


206 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XXI. 33-86 


9») © 


(homeeoteleuton). And οὐδέ is preferable to οὐ : ‘ But ye, after ye saw the 
repentance and faith of these sinners, did not even repent afterwards.’ In 
any case, we again have evidence of the way in which our Lord confirmed 
the authority of the Baptist (ili. 15, xi. 9, 10, 14, xxi. 25). John wrought 
no signs to prove his authority ; but by the character of his message he had 
convinced the people that he was a Prophet, and this conviction our Lord 
repeatedly approves. 


XXI. 33-46. The Parable of the Wicked Husbandmen. 


The thought of work in the vineyard is common to this and 
the preceding parable. In the Two Sons Jesus brings before the 
hierarchy their grievous misconduct in the past ; in spite of John’s 
teaching and His own teaching and mighty works, they have 
refused to believe in Him. In the Wicked Husbandmen He 
deals with the present and the future; He shows that their plots 
against His life are known to Him, and He warns them as to the 
consequences of putting Him to death. It is one of the three 
parables which are found in all three of the Synoptic Gospels, 
the other two being the Sower and the Mustard Seed, a triplet 
which has this in common, that all three are taken from agri- 
culture. ‘The Wicked Husbandmen indirectly gives the answer 
to the question of the Sanhedrin about Christ’s authority ; it is 
the authority of the Father who has sent Him to them, as He 
sent the Prophets before Him; and their rejection of Him is 
the culmination of the rejection of the Prophets by their pre- 
decessors.! 

The imagery of the parable would be quite familiar to a 
Jewish audience. In the O.T. Israel is God’s Kingdom, and 
is often spoken of as a vineyard (Is. v. 1-7; comp. Jer. ii. 21; 
Ezek. xv. 1-6, xix. 10-14; Hos. x. 1, etc.). God had placed 
this Kingdom of His in charge of rulers who were responsible 
to Him for the conduct of His subjects.2 These rulers, whether 
kings and priests under the monarchy, or priests and scribes 
after its downfall, had been unfaithful. He had frequently sent 
His servants the Prophets to remind the kings and priests of 
their obligations to Him, but these had been persecuted, and 
sometimes slain. After the severe judgment of the Captivity 
the priests and scribes had behaved no better. They had been 


Τ Mt. and Mk. the parable is addressed to the representatives of the 
Sanhedrin ; in Lk. it is addressed to the people, and seems to refer to the 
nation as a whole rather than to the rulers exclusively. It was applicable to 
both in different degrees. 

2 Τὴ all three Gospels the cessation of the Theocracy is expressed in the 
same way ; the owner ‘ went into another country’ (ἀπεδήμσεν) : ‘went into 
a far country’ (AV.) is too strong. Jehovah was never far from His people. 
Mt. alone calls the owner οἰκοδεσπότης, a word of which he is fond (x. 25, 
xiii. 27, 52, xx. I, II, xxi. 33, xxiv. 43). But he does not use it xxvi, 17-19, 


Rome! πὸ 


ee ee 


τα πα ἐφ, 
fo wit a 


at ats 


ΡΥ ee eee 
ἔν ἢ es 


XXI. 37-42] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 297 


left to themselves, with the records of the Prophets’ warnings, 
fora time. But now at last the great Messianic Prophet, God’s 
own Son, is sent. They have rejected Him and mean to kill 
Him, and the cup is full. 

But the rejection and murder will bring no advantage to the 
perpetrators ; they will but hasten God’s judgment upon them, 
Jesus is that corner-stone which must come to its dominant 
place in the edifice, however disdainfully it may be treated by 
the builders. To put Him to death will destroy, not Him, but 
the dispensation of which they are.the representatives and the 
rulers ; and His Resurrection will inaugurate a new dispensation 
in which they will have no part.! 

If this parable was in the Logia, Mk. and Mt. have followed 
the original source very closely. But, while taking the Two Sons 
and the Marriage of the King’s Son from the Logia, Mt. may 
in the intermediate parable simply have copied Mk. Lk.’s 
reproduction of the parable is much more free. In Lk., as in 
Mt., the only messenger who is slain is the son and heir, whose 
death forms a dramatic climax. In Mk. the third messenger 
and some of the subsequent messengers are killed, a representa- 
tion which is nearer to historic fact ; and an extraordinary historic 
fact itis. ‘‘The uniform hostility” of kings, priests, and people 
to the Prophets is one of the most remarkable features in the 
history of the Jews. The amount of hostility varied, and it 
expressed itself in different ways, on the whole increasing in 
intensity ; but it was always there. Deeply as the Jews lamented 
the cessation of Prophets after the death of Malachi, they 
generally opposed them, as long as they were granted to them. 
Till the gift was withdrawn, they seem to have had little pride 
in this exceptional grace shown to the nation, and little apprecia- 
tion of it or thankfulness for it. And, seeing that each generation 
acted in the same way, the parable is true to fact in representing 
this uniform hostility as the action of the same set of husband- 
men. The hearers were ‘the sons of them that slew the 
Prophets,’ and were but carrying on the policy of their fathers. 

But Jesus claimed to be much more than a Prophet, and 
His hearers understood the claim; He is not a servant but a 
Son, the beloved,” the only Son. His hearers regarded the claim 
as blasphemous, and it was so, if it was unfounded. We cannot 
regard it as unfounded, and at the same time regard Him as 
merely the last and best of the Prophets. If we reject His claim, 

1See Briggs, Zhe Messiah of the Gospels, pp. 114-1173 Messianic 
Prophecy, p. 208; Hastings’ DB. and DCG., art. ‘ Corner-stone.’ 

*In the N.T. ἀγαπητός is used only of Christ and of Christians: in the 
O.T. it sometimes Ξε μονογενής (Gen. xxii. 2, 12, 16; Amos viii. 10; Zech. 
xii. 10; Jer. vi. 26). Here Mk. and Lk. have it, but Mt. omits, perhaps as 
superfluous, With δεῦτε ἀποκτείνωμεν comp, Gen. xxxvii. 20, 


298 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXI. 37-42 


He was a false prophet. That the owner is mistaken as to the 
effect of sending his son is part of the framework of the parable; 
the owner is represented from the first as a human being 
(ἄνθρωπος, ver. 33), and he thinks and acts in a human way. 
His conduct represents, not the exact way in which God acts, 
but the way in which He often seems to man to act. He appears 
to miscalculate, and to change His plans. 

But the miscalculation on the part of the lusbandmen is 
real. The rulers expected to be able to retain their position 
without yielding obedience to Him who claimed to be the 
Messiah, and yet was so unlike what they supposed that the 
Messiah must be; and to a large extent the nation shared this 
delusion. But they had had full opportunity of learning the 
truth about Jesus, and they are represented in the parable as 
knowing that He was the Son and yet slaying Him. This is 
treated as being so certain that the Son is spoken of as already 
cast out and killed.t| But God’s judgment upon the murderers 
is treated as future; and in a rhetorical question Christ asks 
what the judgment will be.2_ Mk. does not expressly state who 
answers the question, but he implies that Christ answers it Him- 
self. This is clearly indicated in Lk., for he makes the hearers 
reply with a ‘God forbid.’ Mt., with less probability, represents 
the hearers as answering Christ’s question, as if they did not see 
that they were pronouncing their own condemnation. Here 
the parable becomes “a scarcely veiled prophecy of the Divine 
visitation of wrath which befell Jerusalem, the call of the Gentiles, 
and the fruitfulness and permanence of the Catholic Church” 
(Swete). . 

The imagery is suddenly changed; from the vineyard of 
Isaiah v. we go to the builders of Ps. cxviii. The husbandmen 
who reject the messengers are now the builders who reject the 
stone; and the one rejection is as wicked and as futile as the 
other. The slaying of the Son does not prevent ejection from 
the vineyard, and the refusal to use the stone does not prevent 
it from being raised to its proper position, to the shame of those 
who rejected it. The husbandmen destroyed themselves, when 
they destroyed the heir; and the builders heaped contempt on 


1 Mk. puts the killing before the casting out. Mt. and Lk. reverse the 
order, perhaps because Christ was crucified outside the city (Jn. xix. 17, 20; 
Heb ΧΗ Σ2) 13}: 

2 Comp. ver. 31, where, however, there is no doubt as to who gives the 
answer. 

3 But his way of putting it vividly represents the answer of their own 
consciences. They could not but admit that a stern sentence would be just : 
ἄκοντες προφητεύουσι kat αὐτοὶ τὸ μέλλον (Euthym.). In κακοὺς κακῶς we have 
a play on words which is against the tradition of a Hebrew original: comp. 
vi, 16, xxiv. 30, 


ΧΧΙ. 42-46] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 299 


themselves, when they contemptuously set aside the stone. 
They lost the stone for their own edifice, but it received its due 
honour in a more noble building. The passage about the stone 
was evidently very familiar ; ‘ Did ye zever read in the scriptures ?’ 
(Με); ‘Have ye not read evex this scripture?’ (Mk.). 

Up to this point the parable remains a parable, however 
clear the application may be. But, according to Mt., our Lord 
now removes the thin veil of imagery, and tells His hearers 
plainly: ‘The Kingdom of God shall be taken away from you, 
and shall be given to a nation bringing forth the fruits thereof’ 
(43). This verse is not in Mk., and Mt. cannot have got it 
from Mk. If Mk. and Mt. have used the same source, that 
source probably did not contain this verse. Lk. omits it; and 
why should both Mk. and Lk. omit it, if it was in the source 
which they used? It is probably Mt.’s own deduction from the 
obvious meaning of the parable. For much the same reasons 
the ‘God forbid,’ which Lk. puts into the mouth of the audience 
(xx. 16), is probably his own interpretation of the feelings of the 
audience. 

But, whatever may be Mt.’s authority for this verse (43), there is no doubt 
that it is part of the original text of this Gospel. That cannot be asserted of 
the next verse (44). These words also are not found in Mk., but they are 
found (with the insertion of his characteristic πᾶς) in Lk., and from Lk. they 
may have got into the majority of the texts of Mt. It is perhaps possible 
that they are a very early gloss in Mt., and thence passed to Lk., but no 
sure conclusion can be reached. They are wanting in D 33, Syr-Sin. and 
important Old Latin authorities, and they read more like comment tha» an 
original saying. 

In this verse the stone of Is. viii. 14, 15, ana that of Dan. 
il. 34, 44, 45, seem to have been added to the stone of Ps. cxviii. 
22. From the idea of the corner-stone we pass to the idea of a 
stone over which one may stumble, and from that to one which 
may fall and pulverize that on which it falls. See notes on Lk. 
xx. 18; Briggs, Zhe Messiah of the Gospels, p. 217; Maclaren 
on Mt. xxi. 44. It is from Dan. ii. 44 that ‘shatter into frag- 
ments’ or ‘scatter as dust’ (λικμήσει) comes; see Deissmann, 
Bib. Stud. p. 225. 

In the two concluding verses (45, 46) Mt. makes the narrative 
of Mk. more clear. He tells us wo it was that perceived the 
drift of the parable, and consequently would have killed Jesus 
but for their fear of the multitude; not the audience generally, 
but ‘the chief priests and the Pharisees’; ze. the two chief 
parties in the Sanhedrin, for the priests were mostly Sadducees. 
And here Mt. again shows his feeling against the Pharisees, for 
he alone names them here (see on iii. 7, p. 28, and xxvii. 62). 
Lk. also expressly confines this murderous desire to the hierarchy. 
Mk. is indefinite: ‘ Zey sought to lay hold on Him.’ Mt, also 


300 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXI. 45, 46 


tells us why the hierarchy feared the multitude: ‘because they 
took Him fora Prophet.’ Most of them took much the same view 
of Jesus as of the Baptist ; He was a revival of the old order of 
Prophets. And, as there had been no Prophet since Malachi, 
these new representatives of the order were greatly honoured by 
those Jews who had listened to their teaching, and were not 
under the influence of the Pharisees. Antipas had been afraid 
to put John to death; and now the Sanhedrin is afraid to put 
Jesus to death, especially as Jerusalem was full of pilgrims from 
Galilee. As Mt. has already recorded two parables, the Two 
Sons and the Wicked Husbandmen, he speaks of ‘parables’ as 
exciting the animosity of the rulers, while Mk. and Lk. speak 
only of the ‘parable.’ No doubt the Wicked Husbandmen would 
provoke them much more than the Two Sons; and the parabolic 
saying about the stone would increase the provocation. As Mt. 
has another parable to record, he omits Mk.’s ‘They left Him, 
and went away,’ which perhaps means that they returned to 
consult with the other members of the Sanhedrin as to what was 
to be done respecting Jesus. 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xxi.: τότε (1), πορεύεσθαι (2, 6), iva 
πληρώθῃ (4), ἰδού (5), vids Aaveld (9, 15), ἐκεῖ (17), προσέρχεσθαι (23) τί ὑμῖν 
δοκεῖ, (28), ὕστερον (29, 32, 36), οἰκοδεσπότης (33), δεῦτε (38), ἀποδιδόναι (41). 
Peculiar: τὸ ῥηθέν (4), συντάσσειν (6), of πρεσβύτεροι τοῦ λαοῦ (23); peculiar 
to this chapter: ἐπικαθίζειν (7), θαυμάσιος (15). 

On the right rendering of aorists in Mt., respecting which there are some 
nice points in this chapter, especially in ver. 42, see J. H. Moulton, Gram. 


of N.T. Gr. pp. 137-140. 


The Book of Jubilees supplies a parallel to the parable of the 
Wicked Husbandmen: “TI will send witnesses unto them, that I 
may witness against them; but they will not hear, and will slay 
the witnesses also; and they will persecute those who seek the 
law, and will abrogate and change everything so as to work evil 
before My eyes. And I will hide My face from them; and I 
will deliver them into the hand of the Gentiles for captivity and 
for a prey, and for devouring ; and I will remove them from the 
midst of the land, and will scatter them amongst the Gentiles” 


{1 τὴν τὸν: 


XXII. 1-14. Zhe Parable of the Marriage of the 
King’s Son. 


It is not likely that this section and that which is commonly 
called the Great Supper in Lk. xiv. 16-24 are divergent reports 
of one and the same parable. The occasions and drift are 
different; some of the details are quite different; and where 
the details are similar the wording is so different that they can 


XXII. 1-10] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 301 


hardly have come from the same source. It is probable enough 
that our Lord sometimes used similar material for parables 
varying in import. The similar material was handled in a new 
way, and mingled with new material, in order to suit a new 
audience. Here the new material is that the evil-doers are not 
merely discourteous people who disregard a pressing invitation, 
but also rebels who insult and kill their king’s messengers, and 
are destroyed with their city for so doing. This probably has 
special reference to the murders of Jesus and of some of His 
disciples, and to the consequent destruction of Jerusalem. This 
new material gives tremendous import to the parable, and makes 
it far more severe in tone than the Great Supper. But it inter- 
feres with the probability of the story. These rude and rebellious 
rejectors of the royal invitation would not all dwell in one city.? 
But that is of small moment. A clear indication of the guilt 
of the Jewish leaders and the people whom they led, and of the 
judgment that awaited both, was more important than the 
literary form of the story. Again, the fact that it is a king who 
sends the invitations, and that the occasion of the banquet is the 
marriage of his son, is new material, and this also serves to 
enhance the import of the parable. It shows how grievous was 
the offence of the Jewish rulers and their followers in rejecting 
God’s message, even before they went the length of slaying His 
messengers.? 

But the royal marriage-feast will none the less be supplied 
with guests. What the self-satisfied and arrogant Pharisees 
spurn, the neglected multitude both of Jews and Gentiles will 
accept. Publicans, harlots, and heathen go into the Kingdom 
of God, while those who refused to make use of the opportunities 
afforded them are excluded, and are deprived of their religious 
privileges as well as of their political existence. ‘Even that 
which they think that they have’ (Lk. viii. 18) is taken from 
them. 

In the Wicked Husbandmen we cannot interpret the 
different messengers, or groups of messengers, as representing 
any particular Prophets or groups of Prophets; and it may be 
doubted whether in this parable each group of servants has a 


1 We must allow for the possibility that vv. 6, 7 are an insertion made 
by the Evangelist. The parable reads more smoothly if they are omitted. 

* There isaclimax. At first they are simply unwilling. Then they are 
frankly rude; the quiet of country life or the excitement of commerce is 
openly preferred to the royal entertainment. Then a violent minority abuse 
and kill the importunate messengers. This provokes punishment, which falls 
on all, for all have been guilty of a gross and repeated insult to the king, 
Among the Arabs, to accept an invitation, and refuse to come when 
summoned, is a deadly insult. For the use of ἴδιον (5) see J. H. Moulton, 
Gr. of N.T. Gr. i. p. 90. 


302 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXII. 3-11 


separate interpretation.! But in each case the last of the 
missions is clear; the meaning of the owner’s son is obvious; 
and the servants who, after the destruction of the guilty city, 
brought in the outcasts, must be the first Christian preachers. 
We need not ask who the king’s son is; he is only mentioned 
to indicate the greatness of the festival. Still less need we ask 
who it is that he marries; she is not mentioned at all. It is the 
self-caused exclusion and destruction of the Pharisees and their 
followers, and the substitution of outcasts and heathen as guests 
at the banquet, that are the main lessons of the parable. 

No parable can set forth all sides even of a single truth, and 
it required more than one parable to set forth the nature of the 
advantages which the Jewish rulers had so blindly thrown away. 
The Kingdom of God is a fact with many sides to it. It is work 
for God (the Two Sons). It is work for one’s own profit as well 
as for God (the Wicked Husbandmen). It is a royal banquet 
(the Marriage of the Kiug’s Son). It is not all work, and it is 
not all festivity; it is a wholesome and joyful combination of 
both. All this the self-righteous Pharisees rejected; all this 
others whom they despised would secure. 

Here perhaps the parable, as Christ delivered it, ended. 
Here the moral, which is placed at the end of the appendix to 
the parable (14), would have some point. ‘Many are called, 
but few chosen.’ All the Jews and all the Gentiles were called ; 
but only a few of the former, and not all of the latter, were 
chosen. At the end of the appendix the moral is out of place, 
for in the episode of the wedding-garment only one was not 
chosen. It is possible that the Evangelist has taken the con- 
clusion of another parable and added it to the Marriage of the 
King’s Son, in order to bring out the fact that, just as not all the 
Jews are excluded, for some are the servants of the King, so 
not all the Gentiles are admitted. In each case it is obedience to 
the King’s will which secures a place in the Kingdom. 

That the Wedding Garment was originally part of a distinct 
parable appears probable from the omission of any mention of 
the means by which the unworthy guest ought to have provided 
himself with decent attire. It is commonly assumed that the 
King provided suitable garments for the guests, and that this 
man had contemptuously refused to put on what was offered 
him. But nothing is said about this; and the king, when he 
questions the unworthy guest, does not tax him with having 


1 It should be noted that here the first group of servants do not carry the 
first invitation; they go to summon ¢hose who had already been invited (τοὺς 
kekAnuévous) to the banquet. Presumably they had not definitely refused the 
original invitation, and therefore might be supposed to have accepted it. At 
any rate, the king graciously gives them two opportunities of availing them- 
selves of the invitation. 


XII. 11.14] LAST WORK IN THE IIOLY CITY 303 


despised a royal gift, but simply with being in unseemly attire. 
In the Ten Virgins, the bridegroom does not provide oil, which 
the foolish virgins refuse to accept: in the interval before the 
arrival of the bridegroom, all ought to have provided oil for 
themselves. In the original form of this parable we may suspect 
that, in the interval between the invitation and the banquet, the 
guests had to dress themselves becomingly and wait until they 
were summoned. Such a parable is found in the Midrash. 
Of those invited some are wise and some are foolish. The wise 
put on festal Array and wait in readiness. The foolish do not; 
and, when the summons comes, they hurry to the feast in their 
working-clothes. For this they are beaten, and made to stand 
hungry and watch the others sit and feast. See Allen, p. 235; 
Wetstein, p. 471; Bruce, Parabolic Teaching, p. 463. Zahn, p. 
626, note. 

This appendix to the parable (11-14) may have been added 
by Christ Himself; but it is more probable that it is the 
Evangelist who has united the Wedding Garment to the 
Marriage of the King’s Son.!_ The addition shows that it is not 
enough to accept the royal invitation. It is the king’s will that 
the invited should come, and that they should come duly 
prepared ; and those who come with wanton and open lack of 
preparation dishonour and disobey him no less than those who 
refuse to come at all. Indeed the disrespect which is committed 
under the royal roof and in the royal presence may be regarded 
as even more flagrant than the disrespect of rejecting the royal 
invitation. They are treated with no less severity. ‘The Gentile 
who dares to come before the king, while still defiled with all 
his pagan godlessness, is condemned as decisively as the Jew 
who persistently and violently refuses to come at all.?_ A loyal 
desire to conform to the will of God is all that is demanded in 
either case, but it is absolutely indispensable, and there can be 
no excuse for the lack of it. The request for an explanation, 
made with a gentle address (comp. xx. 13), renders the offender 
speechless (ἐφιμώθη) ; and the sentence to the outer darkness 
follows. The explanatory words of warning, ‘There shall be the 
weeping and the gnashing of teeth,’ are not part of the king’s 
command to the servants, but are addressed by Christ to the 
audience. They are not to think that the outer darkness means 
very little (comp. xiii. 42). 

1If we go from the middle of ver. 3 to ver. 11, we have a complete 
parable; and ‘in parables’ (ver. 1) seems to imply that more than one 
parable is to follow (comp. xiii. 3, 10, 13, xxi. 45). 

2S. Ephraim interprets the wedding-garment as meaning the body, which 


ought to be clean and free from defilement (Burkitt, Zvangelion da-Mephar: 
reshe, ii, pp. 124, 125). 


304 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [Χ ΧΙ]. 15-22 


XXII. 15-22. The Question of Tribute to Cesar. 


In xxi. 45, Mt. mentions ‘the chief priests and the Pharisees’ 
as Christ’s hostile audience, indicating that, bitter as was the 
opposition between Sadducees and Pharisees, yet the two united 
in the desire to destroy Jesus. Having failed in concert, they now 
make separate attacks, the Pharisees about the paying of tribute, 
the Sadducees about the doctrine of the Resurrection. Here 
Mt. again follows Mk., who says that this time, as on an earlier 
occasion (Mk. iii. 6), the Pharisees were joined in their plots by 
the Herodians. In that place, Mt. (xii. 14) omits the Herodians, 
but here he retains the mention of them, for their co-operation 
was significant. As a political party, they were interested in the 
overthrow of a popular teacher whose doctrine seemed to be 
subversive of the existing Government. (For the Herodians, as 
political rather than religious in sentiment and policy, see 
Hastings’ DB. and DCG., and Smith’s D&., 2nd ed.). For the 
tribute see Schiirer, 1. 11. 80, 107-111. In politics, the Herodians 
were as detested by the Pharisees as the Sadducees were in 
religious matters; but here again two hostile parties combined 
against Christ. ‘The Herodians of course defended, and probably 
approved, Herod’s arrest and execution of the Baptist, and they 
would be strenuously opposed to Him whom the Baptist had 
supported, and who was carrying on the Baptist’s work. During 
the latter part of His Ministry, Christ had been avoiding Herod’s 
dominions (Mk. vi. 53, vii. 24, 31, Vili. 27, x. I), avoiding 
publicity (vil. 24, viii. 13), and charging people not to make His 
miracles known (vii. 36, vill. 26, ix. 9). 

Like the question about authority, the question about tribute 
was not in itself an unreasonable one. A Rabbi of great repute 
might fairly be asked to give his opinion on a question of some 
difficulty. Perhaps not a few of those who paid tribute were not 
sure of the grounds on which paying for the support of a hostile 
and heathen Government could be justified. Yet all three 
Evangelists represent Christ as perceiving that the question was 
asked, not for instruction, but for a sinister purpose.t Christ’s 
followers no doubt knew this, and not only ‘marvelled,’ but were 
delighted at the justice and skill with which He replied to the 
question. They would not have been pleased if He had simply 
said that Caesar must be paid; but the principle that both 


1 ὅπως παγιδεύσωσιν is Mt.’s own expression in anticipation of Christ’s τί 
με πειράζετε; The word is rare in the LXX. (1 Sam. xxviii. 9; Eccles. ix. 
12), and occurs nowhere else in the N.T. But it occurs in the Testaments, 
of the wiles of Potiphar’s wife: περιεβλέπετο ποίῳ τρόπῳ με παγιδεῦσαι 
( Joseph vii. 1). As Christ came from Galilee, the home of rebellion, and as 
He had a Zealot among His disciples, His enemies hoped that He would 
forbid the payment of tribute. 


XXII. 19-23] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 305 


Czsar and God must be paid what was due to them, was 
unanswerable. 

In one detail both Mt. and Lk. rather spoil the narrative of 
Mk. They represent Christ as requesting His tempters to show 
(ἐπιδείξατε, δείξατε) Him a denxarius, the coin in which the tribute 
would be paid. Mk. says that He told them to d7ing (φέρετε) 
Him one. It had to be fetched. Christ’s questioners would 
not be likely to have such a piece of money, with the head of a 
heathen Emperor upon it, on their persons. (For a representa- 
tion of such a coin see Hastings’ DZ., art. ‘Money’; Madden, 
History of Jewish Coinage, pp. 245-248.) This coin represented 
Roman organization, security of person and property, facilities of 
transit, and other beneficent elements of stable government. 
Was it just to accept all these advantages, and then refuse to pay 
for their maintenance? To pay tribute to Czesar was not merely 
lawful, it was a moral obligation, as the change from ‘give’ 
(δοῦναι) in their question to ‘pay’ (ἀπόδοτε) in Christ’s answer 
indicates. The tribute to Rome was not a gift; it was the 
payment of a debt: and it was no impediment to the discharge 
of any obligation to God. “Jesus was as far as possible from 
being a gentle anarchist. It is not often necessary for the 
members of the Kingdom of God to turn revolutionists. The 
watchword of the Christian is not, JZy rights, but My duties” 
(Burton and Mathews, Zife of Christ, p. 228). What God’s 
rights (τὰ τοῦ Θεοῦ) are is not specified, but it is not likely that 
there is any special reference to the Temple-tax (xvii. 25). In 
concluding the narrative, Mt. uses the words in which Mk. (xii. 12) 
states the effect of the parable of the Wicked Husbandmen: ‘they 
left Him, and went away.’ Such variations illustrate the free 
manner in which Mt. treats his authorities. The paragraph which 
follows illustrates the same fact. See both Swete and Gould on 
the parallel verses in Mk. 


XXII. 23-33. The Question of the Resurrection. 


Mt. is alone in stating that this question was raised by the 
Sadducees on the same day that the Pharisees and Herodians 
raised the question of tribute to Caesar. Mk. and Lk. leave the 
time indefinite. In a similar way Mt. inserts ‘on that day’ at 
xiii. τ, where Mk. and Lk. are indefinite. It is possible that here 
Mt. had some other authority besides Mk. In wording he 
differs more from Mk. than he usually does; and, while Lk. 
agrees with Mt. in some of these differences, in others Mt. is 
alone. On the other hand, it is possible that Mt. is merely 
treating Mk. with more freedom than he commonly does, and 
that he had no other source, 

20 


306 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XXII. 23-32 


Mt. abbreviates Mk. xii. 21, 223; so also does Lk., but in a different 
manner. The latter half of ver. 25 is peculiar to Mt., as also is ἐπιγαμβρεύσει 
in ver. 24.1 But Lk. follows Mt. in substituting ὕστερον, of which Mt. is rather 
fond, for ἔσχατον, an adverb which is rare in the N.T., and which is found 
nowhere else in the Gospels. 

In ver. 23 we ought probably to read Σαδδουκαῖοι λέγοντες (δὲ BD MSZ, 
Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur.) rather than Da66. of λέγοντες (EX F GH K Letc., Sah. Boh. 
Vulg. Arm.). The former simply states what they said to Christ on this 
occasion ; the latter states the Sadducean creed. RV. omits the article, but 
translates as if it were there, ‘which say’ (with ‘ saying’ in the margin): in 
short, οἱ λέγοντες Ξε οἵτινες λέγουσιν (Mk.). Inall three Gospels the Sadducean 
denial is given as a matter of opinion: μὴ εἶναι, not οὐκ εἶναι ; comp. Acts 
xxiii. 8; 1 Cor. xv. 12. Mt. has mentioned the Sadducees, iii. 7, xvi. 1, 6, 
11 ; but this is the first mention of them by Mk. and Lk. 


Nowhere else does Christ give such clear statements about 
the risen dead. ‘The resurrection will not be a reanimation of 
bodies that have perished, and the new life will not be a re- 
sumption of this life. The body that shall be is not the body 
that is sown: 1 Cor. xv. 36, 37. 

In Christ’s answer, Lk. expands the wording of Mk. consider- 
ably, but he omits the important explanation, ‘ye err, not knowing 
the Scriptures, nor the power of God.’ This was the cause of 
the Sadducean mistake,—ignorance. They showed ignorance of 
the Scriptures, when they drew inferences from the experiences 
of this life and applied them to the conditions of a future life; 
and they showed ignorance of the power of God when they 
assumed that, if He granted a future life, it could not be very 
different from this one. Marriage is necessary for men in this 
world, because they die, and the race must be preserved ; but in 
the other world they do not die, and therefore marriage becomes 
as unnecessary for them as it is for the Angels.? In the life 
beyond the grave there are no wives and no husbands, and this 
disposes of the supposed difficulty. 

This answer might have sufficed; but the Sadducees had 
appealed to ‘ Moses,’ and therefore Christ gives them a further 
answer, which not merely disposes of their objection, but shows 
that in the Books of Moses the doctrine of a future life is plainly 
implied. In Gen. xxvi. 24 and xxviii. 13 God calls Himself the 
God of Abraham, after Abraham had died; and in Exod. iii. 6, 
15, 16 and iv. 5 God calls Himself the God of Abraham, Isaac, 
and Jacob, after all three had died. Therefore those who have 
died in this world are still alive in the other, for God is still their 

1The very rare word ἐπιγαμβρεύειν and the expression ‘raise up seed 
to his brother’? come from Gen. xxxvili. 8; comp. I Sam. xviii. 22-27. 
Kennedy, Sources of N.T. Greek, p. 118. 

2 This comparison with the Angels is in all three Gospels, and it had 
special point against Sadducees, who denied their existence. Would our 


Lord have used such an argument, if in this matter the Sadducees were right ? 
See on xiii. 49, xvi. 27, xviil. 10, xxiv. 31, 36; and comp. Enoch xv. 4-7. 


XXII. 33-35 | LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 307 


God. What is dead can have a Creator or a Controller; but 
only living beings can havea God. And this pregnant expression 
was spoken τ the Sadducees (τὸ ῥηθὲν ὑμῖν ὑπὸ τοῦ Θεοῦ) by 
Almighty God. All these years they have had it before their 
eyes, and yet they have never seen the force of it. Hence their 
error about the impossibility of a Resurrection, which (as Mk. 
adds) is a very grievous one (πολὺ πλανᾶσθε). No one can have 
a right estimate of his position and duty in this life who omits 
all account of a life to come. 

There are differences of reading in ver. 32 and parallels. But it is certain 
that in all three Gospels Θεός occurs only once in the last sentence ; and it is 
probable that in no Gospel should Θεός have the article : οὐκ ἔστιν Θεὸς νεκρῶν, 


ἀλλὰ ζώντων, which may be rendered, ‘ He is not God of dead people, but of 
living,’ or, ‘ There is no God of dead people, but of living.’ 


Mt. alone adds that, ‘when the multitudes heard it, they 
were astonished at His teaching’; and this was a very safe 
addition. Even the Pharisees had supposed that there was no 
direct evidence of a future life in the Pentateuch, and thereby 
gave a great advantage to their opponents; and yet Christ had 
produced evidence which completely silenced (ἐφίμωσεν) the 
Sadducees, and at the same time convinced all who heard it of 
its sufficiency. How came it about that it had been left to this 
new Rabbi from Galilee to discover so unanswerable a text? 
The Pharisees and Herodians had ‘marvelled’ (ἐθαύμασαν) 
before (22); now the multitudes are ‘amazed’ (ἐξεπλήσσοντο) at 
His teaching. But this latter statement comes from Mk. xi. 18, 
where Mt. in the parallel verse (xxi. 15) omits it. Another 
instance of Mt.’s free method of working. 


XXII. 34-40. The Question of the Great Commandments. 


Mt. here differs considerably from Mk. (xii. 28-34), but we 
are in doubt as to whether he had any additional source of 
information. In Mk. the Scribe is so pleased with Christ’s 
reply to the Sadducees that he asks a question which was much 
debated. Christ answers him, and he expresses his satisfaction 
with the answer in such a way that our Lord tells him that he 
is not far from the Kingdom of God. In Mt. the Scribe 
appears in a much less favourable light. He is a Pharisee (a 
name of very bad repute in Mt.), and apparently, so far from 
being pleased with Christ’s refutation of the Sadducees, he 
comes forward to see whether he cannot extract a compromising 
answer from Jesus. But this is not quite certain. ‘Tempting 
Him’ need not mean more than testing or proving Him, to see 
whether He would give as convincing an answer respecting the 
question about the chief commandments. Yet Mt., by assigning 


308 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXII. 36-38 


this Scribe to the group of plotting Pharisees, and by omitting 
both his approval of Christ and Christ’s approval of him, is 
evidently disposed to regard him as an enemy.! 

This is all the more clear if συνήχθησαν ἐπ᾽’ αὐτόν, ‘were gathered 
together agazwzst Him’ (1), Lat-vet. Syr-Sin. Syr-Cur.) is the right reading. 
It might readily be changed into συνήχ. ἐπὶ τὸ airé. The Pharisees would 
not rejoice at Christ’s victory over the Sadducees on the crucial question of 
the Resurrection. At this crisis they desired that Jesus should be vanquished, 
no matter by whom. Lk. omits the whole incident, unless ‘certain of the 
Scribes answering said, Master, Thou hast well said’ be regarded as a 
condensation of Mk.’s narrative. Lk. had recorded a similar incident 
x. 25-28, and perhaps for that reason omits this one. Comp. also the story 
of the rich young man, which is in all three ; see on xix. 16-30. 


The rendering of ver. 36, ‘Which is the great commandment 
in the Law?’ (AV., RV.) does not give the exact meaning of 
the question (ποία ἐντολὴ μεγάλη ἐν τῷ vopw;). It should rather 
be, ‘What kind of a commandment (xxl. 23) is great in the 
Law?’ The man is not asking which is the one supreme 
commandment, but what c/ass of commandments is in the first 
rank.2 What sort of characteristics must a commandment have 
in order to be accounted great? Or is there any one command- 
ment which has these characteristics in a very marked degree? 
That the injunctions of the Law were regarded as differing in 
importance is seen in v. 19; and on various occasions Christ 
had come into conflict with the Pharisees as to the relative 
obligations of certain rules; e.g. respecting the sabbath (xii. 
1-14), filial duty (xv. 1-9), divorce (xix. 3-9). What principle 
ought to guide one in making such distinctions? 

Such a principle is found in ¢he love of God; and, to make 
clear what that means, Christ refers His questioner to the text 
with which every Jew of that time was very familiar, for he had 
to recite it twice every day. This duty towards God is hinted 
at in the Second Commandment: ‘showing mercy unto 
thousands, of them that love Me’ (Exod. xx. 6; Deut. v. 10); 
and it “is set forth in Deuteronomy with peculiar emphasis as 
the fundamental motive of human action” (x. 12, xi. 1, 13, 22, 
ΧΠ 3, XIX. Ὁ; xxx. 6, 16, 20). “It thus appears as the most 
inward and the most comprehensive of all religious duties, and 
as the chief commandment of all”; see Driver on Deut. vi. 5: 
praceptum non modo maximum, necessitate, amplitudine, diutur- 
nitate rei; sed etiam primum, natura, ordine, tempore, evidentia 
(Bengel). But side by side with it our Lord at once places the 

1 For the feeling of Mt. against the Pharisees see on iii. 7 and xxvii. 62. 
The Pharisees were dismissed xxii. 22 ; yet here and ver. 41 Mt. brings them 
on the scene again. 

* The Rabbis counted more than six hundred precepts in the Law, of 


which some were called ‘weighty’ and others ‘light’; and there was much 
discussion as to which were which. 


XXII. 39,40] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 309 


similar principle of the Jove of one’s neighbour, i.e. of one’s 
fellow-men. This other duty is placed second, not merely 
because God, although not recognized so soon as one’s neigh- 
bours are, is yet much nearer to us than they can be, and 
because our love for Him is the basis of our love for them. It 
is in Him that we are all brethren.t Comp. v. 43, vil. 12, 
xix. 19; Lev. xix. 18. And lest we should suppose that mere 
absence of hostility, or mere otiose affection is all that is 
demanded, we are told that God is to be loved with all the 
powers, spiritual, moral, and intellectual, which He has bestowed 
upon us, and that our neighbours’ interests must be as dear to 
us as Our Own. 

Mt. is alone in adding the words: ‘On these two command- 
ments the whole Law hangeth and the Prophets’ (40). The 
man had asked respecting the Law, and Christ’s reply comes 
from the Pentateuch. But here He points out that these two 
great principles cover not only the elementary precepts of the 
Pentateuch, but the more advanced teaching of the Prophets ; 
they are the life and soul of all the moral and spiritual teaching 
of the Old Testament. If any one desires to know whether a 
particular precept is to be accounted great or not, let him 
consider how far it embodies one or both of these two cardinal 
principles. With this use of ‘hangeth’ (κρέμαται) comp. Judith 
Vill. 24. 

In Mk. xii. 30 and Lk. x. 27 there are four powers with which God is 
to be loved; Mt. follows both Hebrew and LXX. in giving three; but he 
has both καρδία and diavola, which are equivalents of the same Hebrew, 
while he omits ἰσχύς, which is the equivalent of δύναμις. Mt. also follows 
the Hebrew in having ἐν throughout, while Mk. has ἐξ throughout. Lk. 
begins with ἐξ and at once changes to ἐν. Mt. would of course prefer a 
triplet to the fourfold division in Mk., but he would have done better to 
omit καρδία and retain ἰσχύς. In the Testaments we have ὑμεῖς δὲ φοβεῖσθε 
Κύριον τὸν Θεὸν ἡμῶν ἐν πάσῃ ἰσχύι ὑμῶν (Zebulon x. 5). 

Except in quotations, no Evangelist uses the word διάνοια, and (excepting 
Lk. xxiv. 45) no Evangelist uses vos. In none (without exception) does 
νόημα or ἔννοια, φρήν or φρόνημα, γνώμη, or λόγος in the sense of ‘ reason,’ 
occur ; while γνῶσις and φρόνησις are confined to Lk. and in him are rare. 


On the other hand, καρδία, ψυχή, and πνεῦμα are frequent in the Gospels. 
With the triplet here comp. Plaut. Caftzvz, 11. ili. 27, 


Ut potissimum, quod in rem recte conducat tuam, 
Id petam, idque persequar corde et animo atque viribus. 


1The combination of these two great commandments is found in the 
Testaments: ‘*‘Love the Lord in all your life, and one another in a true 
heart” (Dan v. 3). See Charles, pp. Ixxix, 127. Klostermann quotes 
Philo (De Septen. Ὁ. 282), ἔστι. . . δύο τὰ ἀνώτατα κεφάλαια, τό τε πρὸς 
Θεὸν δι᾽ εὐσεβείας καὶ ὁσιότητος, καὶ τὸ πρὸς ἀνθρώπους διὰ φιλανθρωπίας καὶ 
δικαιοσύνης. 


310 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ XXII. 41-42 


XXII. 41-46. The Messiah’s own Question respecting 
the Son of David. 


All three Evangelists seem to understand that this question 
was put by Christ to His opponents immediately after He had 
silenced them by answering in an unanswerable manner the 
questions with which they had tried to baffle and entrap Him. 
There is no intimation that our Lord’s enemies had retired, and 
Mt. asserts that they had not.1 But we need not suppose that 
our Lord’s question was put merely to baffle His foes and shame 
them still further before the multitude. Mk. says that it was 
asked, ‘as He taught in the Temple,’ which seems to mean that 
it was intended to be instructive. The right answer to this 
question would solve the still unanswered problem as to the 
nature of the authority by which He cleansed the Temple and 
put forward doctrines which traversed the traditional teaching 
of the elders. He had been called upon to silence those who 
had hailed Him as the Son of David. That implied that He 
ought not to accept so honourable a title. He points out that 
the title gives Him, not too much, but too little. If He is only 
the Son of David, He has no more right than Solomon or any 
other descendant of David to the title of Messiah. But in a 
Psalm, which every one recognized as Messianic and as inspired, 
the: Messiah is represented as altogether superior, not merely 
to any other son of David, but to David himself. There the 
Messiah is recognized as having a unique relationship, not to 
David, but to God, whose sovereignty He shares. Comp. iii. 17, 
ΧΙ 27, ΧΥΪ TO) ΧΧΙ 27. 

Christ’s argument is seriously misapprehended, when it is 
supposed that He criticized the assertion that the Messiah is 
the Son of David as untrue. He criticized it as twadeguate. 
Generation after generation, there had been many who could 
rightly claim this title; but hitherto there had been no one 
who combined the right relationship to David with the right 
relationship to God. With their knowledge of the Scriptures, 
the Jewish teachers ought to have been able to see that the 
claims of Jesus were confirmed by writings which they accepted 
as inspired by God and as referring to the Messiah. 

So far there is no difficulty in the argument used by Jesus. 
He assumes, and His hearers by their silence admit, the in- 
spiration and Messianic meaning of Ps. cx. Criticism can admit 
both. But He also seems to assume, and His hearers by their 
silence to admit, that David is the author of the Psalm; and 


1 Mt. designates them as ‘Pharisees’ (which neither Mk. nor Lk. do), 
and he thus once more shows his attitude towards them; see on ili. 7, 
p. 28, and xxvii. 62. 


XXII. 42-46] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 311 


to this assumption criticism raises serious objections. The 
discussion of these objections belongs to the commentator on 
the Psalms. We have to deal with the fact that many competent 
critics regard the objections as fatal. If, therefore, it is in- 
credible that Ps. cx. was written by David, what view are we 
to take of Christ’s argument? There are various suggestions. 

(1) Our Lord is arguing from His opponents’ own premises, 
expressing no opinion as to their correctness. They accepted 
Ps. cx. as Davidic; then what was their explanation of it in 
reference to Himself? This is one of those “sayings in which 
He takes up ideas and expressions current at the time and uses 
without really endorsing them” (Sanday, Bampton Lectures on 
Inspiration, p. 419). 

(2) In the limitations of knowledge to which our Lord 
submitted in becoming man, He Himself shared the belief, 
current among all the teachers at that age, that the Psalm 
was written by David. Criticism was unborn; a knowledge 
of its results would have impeded rather than have aided His 
work; and He “condescended not to know.” To Him, as 
to His hearers, the Psalm was David’s, and He argues ac- 
cordingly. The conclusion which He reached is all that 
matters ; and the conclusion was true. 

(3) The Psalmist lets David quote an utterance of Jehovah, 
in which Jehovah places David’s Lord at His own right hand. 
The argument of Jesus is based upon David being the speaker 
of the words quoted; and this argument “‘is justified if the 
author of the Ps. lets David appear as spokesman. It does 
not require the Davidic authorship of the Psalm. ... These 
words, by whomsoever uttered, have a Messianic reference to 
the seed of David in accordance with the covenant with David, 
and they do not lose their Messianic reference even though in 
the mouth of another” (Briggs, Comm. on the Psalms, ii. 
Pp. 376). ! 

These considerations are sufficient to show that we are not 
justified in quoting our Lord’s authority as determining the 
Davidic authorship. We do not know that He accepted the 
Wavidic authorship. If He did, we have no reason to suppose 
that He was giving a final decision on the subject. The 
question was not raised. If He had been asked to decide 
it, He would perhaps have replied, ‘Man, who made Me a 
decider and a judge?’ Besides the passages referred to in 
Sanday and Briggs, see Kirkpatrick on Ps. cx. in the Cambridge 
Bible; Gore, Bampton Lectures, p. 196; Dalman, Words of Jesus, 
pp. 285-287; Gould on Mk. xii. 35-37; Perowne on Ps. cx. 
(ii. p. 302), with the remarks of Thirlwall there quoted; Weiss 
on Mt. xxii. 43; Bishop Mylne, γιά. Ch. Qu. Rev., Oct. 1892, 


212 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XXII. 46 


p- 486; E. G. King in /ZS., April 1903, p. 338; DCG., art. 
‘ Kenosis.’ 

It is interesting to notice the different position which the 
three Evangelists give to the statement that ‘no man after that 
durst ask Him any question.’ Lk. places it after Christ had 
silenced the Sadducees respecting the Resurrection. Mk. places 
it after the commendation of the Scribe who asked about the 
great commandment. Mt. places it after Christ’s question re- 
specting the Son of David. Lk. is in substantial agreement 
with Mk., for Lk. omits the incident with the Scribe. But Mt. 
has transposed the statement to what seemed to be a more 
suitable position—the close of the debate, after the Messiah 
had proved as victorious in putting questions as in replying 
to them. We may also note the climax, in three stages: 
‘marvelling’ (xxii. 22), ‘amazement’ (33), ‘not daring to ask 
any more questions’ (46). The third stage forms a fit con- 
clusion to ‘that day,-—perhaps the Tuesday before the Cruci- 
fixion,—which has been called ‘the Day of Questions.’ It 
was ‘from that day forth’ that His enemies did not venture 
to give Him any more opportunities of putting them to 
confusion. There have been five questions; about authority, 
tribute, resurrection, great commandments, Psalm cx. 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xxii.: γάμοιξε γάμος (2, 3, 4, 9), ἰδού 
(4), δεῦτε (4), τότε (8, 15), συνάγειν (10, 34, 41), ἔνδυμα (11, 12), ὁ βρυγμὸς 
τῶν ὀδόντων (13), πορεύεσθαι (15), τί δοκεῖ; (17, 42), ὑποκριτής (18), προσέρ- 
χεσθαι (23), Σαδδουκαῖοι (23, 34), ὕστερον (27). Peculiar: ἡ βασιλεία τῶν 
οὐρανῶν (2), ἐξώτερος (13), συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν (15), τὸ ῥηθέν (31), ἑταῖρος 
(12); peculiar to this chapter: σιτιστός (4), ἐμπορία (5), διέξοδος (9), νόμισμα 
(18), ἐπιγαμβρεύειν (24), παγιδεύειν (15). 

Note the aorists, ἐθαύμασαν, ἐπηρώτησαν, ἐτόλμησεν (22, 23, 46), where 
Mk. (xii. 17, 18, 34) has imperfects. 

The much discussed quotation in Barnabas iv. 14 προσέχωμεν μήποτε, ὡς 
γέγραπται, πολλοὶ κλητοί, ὀλίγοι δὲ ἐκλεκτοὶ εὑρεθῶμεν, may more reasonably 
be regarded as a quotation of Mt. xxii. 14 than of some unknown writing. 
It is possible, or even probable, that ‘many called and few chosen’ was 
already a proverb when Christ uttered the saying; and it is possible that 
some such saying lies at the back of 2 Esdr. viii. I, 3, x. 57. But proverbs 
are quoted with ‘as it is said’ rather than with ‘as it stands written,’ which 
necessitates a document; and a known document which contains the words 
is a more satisfactory hypothesis than an unknown document. Barnabas may 
have seen the original Mt. or a very early copy. In Zhe N.T. tn the Apostolic 
Fathers, pp. 18, 19, the other hypothesis is preferred. 


XXIII. Zhe Messiah's Denunciation of the Teachers who 
have misled His People. 


This discourse consists of three main parts: criticisms and 
exhortations, addressed to the mixed multitude and to the 
disciples (2-12); seven Woes, addressed to the Rabbis and 


XXIII.1] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 313 


Pharisees (13-33); judgments upon the nation and upon 
Jerusalem, addressed to the representatives of both (34-39). 


There can be no doubt that, as in the discourses recorded in chapters 
v.-vii., x., and xiii., Mt. has here collected together, and assigned to one 
occasion, utterances of Christ against the Pharisees and official teachers which 
were delivered on various occasions. This is clear from the fact that nearly 
twenty of the verses are found in Lk. ; chiefly in xi. 39-52, but also in xiii. 
34, 35, Xiv. II, and xviii. 14; and that the setting in Lk. is more likely to be 
the true historical setting than thatin Mt. Of the material which is common 
to both Mt. and Lk., the arrangement is very different in the two Gospels. 
Even the long utterance in Lk. xi. 39-52 is given in a very different order 
(46, 43, 52, 42, 39-41, 44, 47, 48, 49-51), and with additional material 
inserted here and there. Moreover, the language is different. This remark 
applies also to Lk. xiii. 34, 35=Mt. xxiii. 37-39. The variations in order 
and in wording are so considerable that it is unlikely that Mt. and Lk. had 
a common source. The only passage which is common to all three Gospels 
is Mt. xxiii. 6, 7=Mk. xii. 38, 39=Lk. xx. 46, 473; comp. xi. 43. See 
Allen’s table of correspondences. 

The verses which have no parallels in Lk. are I-3, 5, 75-10, 15-22, 24, 
28, 32, 33,—a very large portion of the whole. We may conjecture that the 
source of the whole is the Logia, and that, for the material which is common 
to Mt. and Lk., the latter had a source which differed considerably from that 
which was used by Mt. As regards the present occasion, Lk. (xx. 45-47) 
appears to be dependent on Mk. (xii. 38-40). With this exception, none of 
the denunciations of the Pharisees which are common to Mt. and Lk. are 
assigned by Lk. to this crisis. 


It is a crisis. Henceforth there is no appearance of peaceful 
debate between Christ and His opponents; it is a situation of 
open hostility. They have determined to destroy Him, and He 
publicly denounces them. But His triumphant victories over 
them in argument had made Him still more popular with the 
pilgrims who have come up for the Passover, and perhaps with 
not a few of the lower orders in Jerusalem. These enthusiastic 
supporters of the courageous young Teacher would be quite 
ready to listen to a condemnation of the defeated Rabbis. We 
may allow, therefore, that although a good deal of the invective 
contained in this chapter was probably uttered at other times, 
yet it gives a true picture of the historical situation; and it is 
possible that a good deal more than the fragment which is 
common to Mt., Mk., and Lk. was really spoken on this occasion. 


XXL 1-12. Zhe Warnings to the Multitudes and 
to the Disciples. 


The Evangelist leads off with his favourite ‘Then’ (τότε), 
which is probably meant to assign what follows to the time 
indicated in the previous chapter. All hope of reclaiming the 
Scribes and Pharisees is now at an end; and nothing remains 
but to warn all who have been, or might be, misled by them of 


314. GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 2-5 


the disastrous character of their teaching. The opening words 
of the denunciation, as given by Mt., are not easy, and one 
suspects an abbreviation which has obscured the sequence of 
thought. 

‘The Scribes and the Pharisees sat on Moses’ seat.? Why 
‘sat’ (ἐκάθισαν) rather than ‘sit’? Christ can hardly have 
meant that the Rabbis were usurpers,—that they found the seat 
of Moses empty, and (without any authority) occupied it and 
set up as teachers. Elsewhere we do not find Him challenging 
their right to teach; and, if that had been. the meaning here, 
we should expect Him to go on to say: ‘therefore pay no atten- 
tion to what they say.’ Perhaps the original saying was to this 
effect: ‘The Scribes and Pharisees sat in Moses’ seat, when 
they taught you to observe the Law; all things, therefore, 
whatsoever are contained in the Law, do and observe.’ In this 
way we can explain the past tense, and also make ver. 3 in 
harmony with vv. 16-22, in which, not only the conduct, but 
the teaching of the Rabbis is severely condemned. ‘Their state- 
ment of the Law was to be accepted and obeyed, though they 
did not obey it themselves, and often gave monstrous misinter- 
pretations of it. Indeed their misinterpretations were the cause 
of their disobedience ; for, either through culpable blindness, or 
through a wish to evade, they had failed to see, or had explained 
away, the true spirit of the Law. They insisted that, in the 
most minute details, the letter of the Law must be kept, but 
they did not ‘do or observe’ the righteousness at which it 
aimed. 

It was by their perverse interpretations of the details of the 
Law that they ‘bound heavy burdens upon men’s shoulders’ ; 
e.g. in the rigour with which they prohibited exertion of any kind 
on the Sabbath, so that the weekly day of rest, instead of being 
a welcome blessing, became an intolerable burden. Nevertheless, 
they never take the smallest amount of trouble to get these 
exasperating restrictions abolished. They are not willing to 
stir a finger to remove them (κινῆσαι aird).} 

The denunciation passes at once from the good things which 
they fail to do to the evil things which they are constantly 
doing. Jn act as well as in word, they make great professions 
(5), but there is no reality to correspond to it. Scrupulosity 
about such mere externals as ‘phylacteries’ and ‘fringes’ (see 
the articles in Hastings’ DZ. ii. pp. 68 ff, ili. 869 ff.) is a good 
illustration of the formalism of Judaism. Such things were 


1 For κινεῖν in the sense of ‘remove’ see Rey. ii. 5, vi. 14. This makes 
better sense than: ‘They are not willing to move them with a finger, much 
less take them on their backs.’ Syr-Syn. has: ‘But they do not touch 
them.’ 


XXIII. 6-10] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 315 


useful as reminders ; they were fatal when they were regarded 
as charms. ‘The Pharisees fell victims to the peril which is 
inseparable from all externals in religion: ‘all their works they 
do to be seen of men.’ Lk. has the charge against the Pharisees, 
that they loved salutations in the market-places and chief seats 
in the synagogues, twice; in xx. 46, which is parallel to this 
passage, and in xi. 43. It is not impossible that Christ may 
have made the charge on two separate occasions, and in both 
places the context is suitable. Here all three add ‘chief places 
at feasts’ to the ‘salutations’ and ‘chief seats,’ Mk. and Lk. 
placing this addition after the other two, Mt. placing it before 
the other two.! Mt. also transposes the ‘salutations’ and the 
‘chief seats,’ so that his order is exactly the reverse of the order 
in Mk. and Lk. There seems, however, to be no reason for 
this change. 

What follows (8-12), most of which is peculiar to Mt., seems 
to be addressed specially to the disciples; it would not have 
much meaning for the rest. ‘But be not ye called Rabbi’; 
with a strong emphasis on the pronoun. ‘Do not desire this 
title (Jn. i. 39), nor allow others to use it to you.’ And they are 
not to give to others unsuitable titles of respect, any more than 
they are to accept them for themselves.. ‘And call no one your 
father upon the earth’; with a strong emphasis on ‘father.’ 
‘For one is your Father, the heavenly one.’ Here, rather than 
in the earlier place, we might have expected the addition: ‘but 
all ye are brethren.’? It is remarkable that the Scribes had 
reduced the heavenly Father to a sort of glorified Rabbi. 
According to their conception of Him, Hé studied the Law 
three hours each day; He kept its rules; and He was deeply 
interested in external observances. Formalism could hardly go 
farther than to maintain that God Himself is occupied in such 
things. See DCG. i. p. 582. 


It is possible that wv, 8-12 do not belong to this discourse. They 
resemble Jn. xiii. 13-15, and may have been part of the farewell discourses 
which Mt. does notrecord. And it is possible that ver. 10 isa mere doublet of 
ver. 8; for ‘master’ or ‘leader’ (καθηγητής) and ‘teacher’ may be different 
renderings of one and the same word: Dalman, Words, p. 340. Some author- 
ities (8 DLT A) read καθηγητής (doctor) for διδάσκολος (magister) in ver. 8: 
some (U and a few cursives) have ‘ But all ye are brethren’ after ver. 9: and 


1*The uppermost rooms’ (AV.) is misleading now. Topmost chambers 
is not the meaning, but chief places in the banqueting-room, the places of 
distinction at the table. In Elizabethan English, ‘Keep your rooms’ meant 
‘keep your places.’ Comp. Shakespeare, Zam. of Shrew, 111. ii. 252; 
3 Henry V1., 111. il. 132. 

2 See small print below. Christ does not say, ‘ But all ye are My disciples,’ 
because the point to be insisted upon is their equality among themselves, 
rather than their relation to Him, 


3:16 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ΧΧΙ].18 


some (H UTA, Syr-Cur.) insert ὁ Χριστός, which is genuine in ver. 10, at the 
end of ver. 8, where it seems to be required (AV.). Assuming, however, that 
vv. 8 and Io are both original, then Mt. once more has a triplet, διδάσκαλος, 


πατήρ, καθηγητής. 


It was usual to speak of the teachers of a former age as 
‘Fathers,’ but it does not seem to have been customary to 
address a living Rabbi as ‘Father’; comp. 2 Kings ii. 12, vi. 21. 
Hence perhaps the change from ‘Be not ye called’ to ‘Call no 
one.’ There was no need to charge the disciples to refuse the 
title of ‘Father,’ for no one was likely to give it to them. But 
they were to abandon the practice of appealing to the authority 
of ‘the Fathers,’ which had done so much evil in perpetuating 
misleading traditions. 5. Paul, before his conversion, had been 
‘more exceedingly zealous for the traditions of the fathers’ 
(Gal. i. 14): after his conversion he saw the mischief which they 
wrought. The one authority to be appealed to was the God of 
truth, or He who is the Way, the Truth, and the Life. There 
is only one Source of revelation (xi. 25-27, xvi. 17), and it is the 
Son who makes Him known to mankind. With ver. 11 comp. 
xx. 26, and with ver. 12 comp. “Who abaseth himself, him 
exalteth God; and who exalteth himself, him abaseth God” 
(Talmud). 


XXIII. 13-33. Seven Woes upon the Scribes and Pharisees. 


There can be no reasonable doubt (see small print below) 
that ver. 14 is an interpolation from Mk. or Lk. Omitting it, 
we have seven Woes left. In making his collection of Christ’s 
denunciations of the Pharisees, Mt. would be likely to aim at the 
number seven on account of its many associations. Elsewhere 
in this Gospel we have seven demons (xii. 45), seven parables 
(xili.), seven times, and seventy times seven, forgiveness (xviii. 
21, 22), seven brethren (xxii. 25); and some people count seven 
Beatitudes (v. 3-9), and seven petitions in the Lord’s Prayer 
(vi. 9-12). With the seven Woes we may compare ‘the seven 
thunders’ in Rev. x. 3, 4, which are left without explanation ; 
and perhaps also the sevenfold ‘voice of the Lord’ in Ps. xxix. 
where the Prayer-Book version obscures the first voice in ver. 3. 
But the closest parallel is the sixfold Woe in Is. v. These 
seven Woes are like thunder in their unanswerable severity, and 
like lightning in their unsparing exposure. They go direct to 
the mark, and they illuminate while they strike. And yet there 
is an undertone of sorrow, which makes itself heard when the 
storm is over; and at the close (37-39) it is the sorrow that is 
heard alone. Indeed, ‘Alas for you’ may represent the mean- 
ing of each utterance, rather than ‘Woe unto you.’ Comp. 


XXIII. 13-15] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 317 


xxvi. 24. The first three Woes treat of the Pharisaic teaching, 
the last three of the Pharisaic character ; the fourth is transitional, 
treating somewhat of both. We have had previous Woes, one 
on Chorazin and Bethsaida, because of their impenitence (xi. 21), 
and one on the world, because of stumbling-blocks (xviii. 7). 

The first Woe (13) has a parallel in Lk. xi. 52, where it is the 
door of knowledge which the lawyers keep locked both against 
themselves and against others. It is this door which leads to the 
Kingdom, so that the meaning is the same as here.! ΒΥ their 
misinterpretations the Scribes had hidden the true meaning of 
Scripture from themselves and from the people. See Hort, 
Judaistic Christianity, p. 141. ‘Them that are entering’ means 
‘those who are continually trying to enter,’ which gives a better 
picture of the people than we sometimes make. The success of 
the Baptist’s preaching and the enthusiasm of many of the lower 
orders for Christ are evidence of the continual effort to enter the 
Kingdom. The Scribes and Pharisees, by their coldness towards 
John and their opposition to Jesus, hindered this effort from 
being fruitful. The unwillingness of the leaders to enter the 
Kingdom has been already indicated in the parable of the Two 
Sons (xxi. 30). 

That ver. 14 is no part of the true text is clear from its omission in the best 
authorities (δ Β Ὁ 1, Z, Latt. Syr-Syn. Aegyptt. Arm., Orig.), and from the 
fact that those which insert it have it in different places, either before ver. 
13(GHKMSUVTLA, Syr-Pesh. Syr-Harc. Aeth.), or after ver. 13 (4 Old 


Latin texts Syr-Cur., Chrys. Hil.). It is an interpolation from Mk. xii. 40= 
Lk. xx. 47. 


The second Woe (ver. 15) charges these hypocrites, who 
hinder the men of their own nation from entering the Kingdom, 
with being very eager to induce men of other nations to accept 
the religion of the Pharisees. Wherever they succeed, the 
fanaticism which is so common in converts manifests itself, and 
the proselyte becomes twice as formal and hypocritical as those 
who made him a Pharisee. ‘That converts to Pharisaism are 
meant, and not converts to Judaism, is probable for two reasons. 
1. The latter were numerous, while the former were not; and it 
is implied here that the Pharisees made great efforts with scanty 
success. 2. There is no evidence that proselytes to Judaism 
were specially evil in character; what is stated in Acts would 
lead us to think otherwise. Yet it is easy to believe that 
converts to Pharisaism would become more exclusive and formal 
than the Pharisees themselves. But the whole subject is full of 


1 Syr-Sin. has here: ‘Ye hold the key of the Kingdom of Heaven before 
men.’ 

The triplet, ‘Scribes, Pharisees, hypocrites’ is peculiar to Mt. It is an 
interpolation in Lk. xi. 44 (AV.). 


318 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 16-24 


uncertainties ; see Hastings’ DB., art. ‘Proselyte’; Schtrer, 1. 
ii. pp. 291 ff. The story of Izates (Jos. Amt. xx. 11. 4) does not 
throw very much light. There was nothing very Pharisaic in 
telling one who accepted the Jewish religion that he ought to 
submit to circumcision. The main point here seems to be that 
the Pharisees, while professing a great zeal for the spread of the 
true religion, were chiefly bent on winning another adherent to 
their party. 

The third Woe (16-22) is still more clearly directed against 
the Pharisees’ teaching, especially against the casuistry with 
which they decided whether a particular form of oath was 
binding or not. The distinctions which they drew were sub- 
versive of morality. Examples of swearing by the gold of the 
Temple, ze. the golden ornaments and treasures, seem to be 
wanting, but there is no reason to doubt that oaths of this kind 
were taken, or that distinctions such as are here indicated were 
made. It is grievous enough that people should be encouraged 
to think that there are two kinds of truth, one of which is 
important, and the other not; viz. that which is sworn to, and 
that which is stated without an oath. That leads men to think 
that, unless they take an oath, they may tell lies with little or no 
blame. But to tell men that, even when they have sworn, they 
are not bound to tell the truth or abide by their promise, unless 
the oath is taken in a particular way, is far worse, and far more 
destructive of men’s sense of honour and love of truthfulness. 
And our Lord shows that Pharisaic distinctions about oaths were 
not only wrong in themselves, but perverse in principle. If a 
distinction was made, an oath by the Temple ought to be re- 
garded as more serious than an oath by any vessel in the 
Temple. ‘Heaven’ was one of the common substitutes for the 
Name of God, and therefore to swear by Heaven was to swear 
by Him. All oaths are binding ; but the best course is not to 
swear at all. See on v. 33-37. Possibly, Temple and gold, 
altar and gift, heaven and throne, are meant to form a triplet. 

The fourth Woe (23, 24) is concerned with Pharisaic 
scrupulosity in the application of the Law to minute details, a 
scrupulosity which was not wrong in itself, but which became 
monstrous when it was combined with extreme laxity as to 
broad principles of morality (xxii. 37-40). Tithe had to be paid 
upon “αἰ the increase of thy seed’ (Deut. xiv. 22; Lev. xxvii. 
30), and therefore upon herbs of trifling value, such as ‘mint, 
dill (not ‘anise’), and cummin.’ These were useful for flavour- 
ing food and also as medicine. The two triplets, ‘mint, dill, 
cummin’ and ‘judgement, mercy, faith’ are in emphatic contrast 
here ; in Lk. xi. 42 there is no contrast of triplets. 

‘Strain ata gnat’ (AV.) was originally a misprint for ‘strain 


XXIII. 24-28] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 319 


out a gnat’ (Tyndale, Coverdale, Genevan, RV.), the object 
being to avoid drinking what was declared to be unclean 
(Lev. xi. 20-23). As in xix. 24, ‘camel’ is hyperbole for any- 
thing large. Such hyperbole is Oriental, and our Lord employed 
it (v. 29, 30, xvii. 20, xxi. 21) not unfrequently. 

The fifth Woe (25, 26) is aimed at a worse kind of scrupu- 
losity than that of careful tithing of pot-herbs. The latter was in 
accordance with the Law, and was reprehensible only when it 
caused more important duties to be neglected. But punctilious 
observance of lustrations (which were matters of mere tradition, 
and not of the Law), when accompanied by neglect of the 
plainest moral obligations (Lk. xi. 39), was still more repre- 
hensible. These Pharisees were nervously anxious lest their 
food should be made ceremonially unclean through contact with 
a cup or platter that might have touched what was ceremonially 
unclean ; but they were heedless as to whether the food had not 
been tainted in a more serious way, through being the fruit of 
extortion and excess (ἐξ ἁρπαγῆς καὶ ἀκρασίας). 


‘Full from extortion and excess’ (RV.) is right, and seems to mean as 
the result of dishonesty and greed ; the food and drink have been bought 
with ill-gotten gains. Ο D, Latt. omit the ἐξ. Vulg. has zmmunditia 
(ἀκαθαρσίας) for ἀκρασίας (δὲ BD LA II), and Syr-Sin. ‘and of all unclean- 
ness,’ asin ver. 27. CTI etc. read ἀδικίας. The change from ‘excess’ to 
“uncleanness’ was made because this Woe is concerned with the subject of 
‘clean and unclean’; and the change to ‘ unrighteousness’ was made because 
this seemed to go better with ‘extortion.’ ‘ Excess’ is doubtless correct ; yet 
it probably does not refer to excess in eating and drinking, but to insatiable 
lust ofgain. Some Latin texts have ‘ye are full of extortion and unclean- 
ness,’ plené estis for plent sunt. On the ceremonial cleansing of vessels see 
Schiirer, 11. ii. pp. 106-111. 


The change to the singular, ‘Thou blind Pharisee’ (26), is 
not made in Lk. xi. 40, 41, which differs greatly from the 
wording here, the meaning of which is plain. ‘Take care that 
your meat and drink are obtained in an honest way, and then 
you need not be scrupulous about the washing of the cup and of 
the platter.” We again have a triplet: tithing trifles, straining 
out gnats, cleansing cup and platter. 


Perhaps ‘and of the platter’ (καὶ τῆς mapoyldos) should here be omitted 
as an insertion from ver. 25. D, Syr-Sin., some cursives, and some Old 
Latin texts omit. 


The sixth Woe (27, 28) again has a parallel in Lk. xi. But 
the thought differs considerably as to the application of the 
metaphor. Here the whitened tombs look pure and fair on the 
outside, but inside are full of foulness ; which was just like the 
Pharisees. In Lk. the reference is to the whitewashing of graves 
on the 15th of the month Adar, in order that no one might 


320 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [ XXIII. 29-32 


touch them unawares and become polluted without knowing it.} 
Graves that had not been whitewashed were like the Pharisees ; 
people were contaminated by them, through not being aware of 
their true characters. Our metaphor of ‘whitewashing’ moral 
evil is more in harmony with Mt. than with Lk. ; but in neither 
Gospel is it quite clear whether we are to think of the Pharisees 
as conscious or as unconscious hypocrites. ‘The latter are the 
more dangerous to others. 

The Seventh and Last Woe (29-33) must again be compared 
with Lk. xi. The Pharisees professed to be shocked at the 
deeds of their forefathers, who put the Prophets to death. If 
they had lived in those times, they would never have done such 
things. They will make such reparation as is possible by 
erecting beautiful monuments in honour of the Prophets. Here, 
as in giving tithe of small things, it is not the act which is 
blamed ; it is the hypocrisy which accompanies the act that is so 
monstrous. ‘These men, who professed to be so distressed at the 
murdering of the Prophets, were themselves compassing the 
death of Him who was far greater than any Prophet. Building 
tombs for the Prophets was not wrong in itself; but honouring 
dead Prophets while one was scheming to kill a living Prophet, 
was the basest hypocrisy. These hypocritical murderers 
admitted that they were the children of those who killed the 
Prophets. They were their children morally as well as by 
physical descent; with the same hatred of true piety, and the 
same thirst for the blood of those who rebuked their vices. The 
law of heredity was at work in their veins. 

If the majority of texts are right in reading the imperative 
(πληρώσατε) in ver. 32, then the severely ironical command, 
‘Fill ye up then the measure of your fathers,’ should be 
compared with ‘That thou doest, do quickly’ (Jn. xiii. 27). But 
the future may be right (wAnpdcere): ‘Ye will fill up’; ze. ‘In 
spite of all your hypocritical professions, yow are sure to prove 
yourselves worthy descendants- of Prophet-slayers.’ Note the 
emphasis on the pronoun (ὑμεῖς). In any case we have the 
terrible thought that “there is a certain bound to imprudence 
and misbehaviour, which being transgressed, there remains no 
place for repentance in the natural course of things” (Butler, 
Analogy, 1. ii. 10). Then judgment follows, without appeal. 
There is also the thought that, in the case of nations, this limit 
is reached through the action of successive generations, the 
wickedness of each age contributing to the final result. In the 
case of the Jews, the limit of misbehaviour had been almost 
reached, and with the murder of the Messiah and His Apostles 


1 Tf this was spoken a few days before the Passover, the annual whitewash- 
ing of graves would be quite fresh, 


XXITI. 33, 84] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 321 


would be transgressed. The destruction of Jerusalem and the 
dispersion of the nation was at once the inevitable consequence. 


The reading πληρώσατε (δὶ ΒΟΙ, ΧΤ ΔΙ, Latt.) is probably correct. 
Unwillingness to believe that such stern words could have been spoken by 
Jesus might easily cause the variants, either πληρώσετε (B, Syr-Sin.) or 
ἐπληρώσατε (DH). The last has little to recommend it; it would perhaps 
refer to the killing of the Baptist, which, however, was not the work of the 
Jews. The present tense, ‘ Ye are filling up,’ would make excellent sense 
All their machinations against the Messiah were having this result. 


In what follows (33) ‘the wrath of the Lamb’ is manifested, 
and it is terrible! It is “evident that the Sacred Humanity is 
capable of a righteous anger which is the worst punishment that 
the ungodly have to fear, more insupportable even than the 
vision of the Divine Purity” (Swete on Rey. vi. 16). The 
resemblance to lil. 7 is conspicuous; but such severe words 
surprise us less in the Forerunner, who was the bearer of a message 
of judgment, than in the mouth of Him who was at once the 
Bearer of the Good-tidings and the Fulfilment of them. But it is 
well to be reminded that persistent wickedness must provoke 
Divine wrath (xii. 34). Comp. Mk. iii. 5, the only place in the 
Gospels in which anger is attributed to our Lord. ‘The 
judgment of Gehenna’ (ἣ κρίσις τῆς γεέννης) is the judgment 
which condemns to Gehenna. The expression is said to be 
Rabbinical. Comp. v. 22, 25, x. 28. The question has no 
answer ; it is implied that they cannot escape this judgment. 

The ‘Behold, I send’ (34) must be compared with the 
identical phrase in x. 16; the one looks back to the other. 
There Christ tells His Apostles that He sends them as sheep in 
the midst of wolves; here He tells the wolves what the real 
significance of their maltreatment of the sheep will be. In 
both passages the emphatic ‘I’ is to be noted (ἰδοὺ ἐγὼ 
ἀποστέλλω) ; it is Christ Himself who is the Sender, and it is His 
Prophets whom they will persecute. The addition of ‘wise 
men and Scribes’ carries on the parallel with Jewish history and 
also makes another triplet. After Malachi, the nation had been 
taught by wise men and Scribes. The Messiah is to have, not 
only His Prophets, but His wise men and Scribes (xiii. 52), to 
match those of old time ; and they will have no better fate than 
the Prophets of the Old Covenant. By using Jewish terms to 
designate the Christian missionaries, Christ continues to indicate 
the solidarity of His Pharisaic opponents with their murderous 


1 The similarity to the curse in the Talmud is of interest: ‘‘ Woe to the 
house of Annas! Woe to their serpent-like hissings!” Annas and his sons 
had made themselves abominated for their tyranny and rapacity. The 
conduct of Annas was a direct contradiction of his name, which means 
‘merciful.’ See Edersheim, Life and 7imes, i. p. 263. 


21 


322 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XXIII 35 


forefathers. In both cases there was bitter persecution of 
religious teachers for their unwelcome teaching. The title 
‘ Prophets’ passed over to the Christian Church and continued 
for a time; the other two titles were never adopted. The 
slaying and crucifying refer to cases in which the Jews incited 
Roman officials against the Christians; the scourging in 
synagogues (x. 17) and chasing from city to city (x. 23) were 
forms of persecution which the Jews could carry out themselves. 

‘That upon you may come all the righteous blood’ (35) 
expresses the Divinely ordered sequence. ‘The ‘that’ (ὅπως) has 
been anticipated by the ‘therefore,’ ‘for this reason’ (διὰ 
τοῦτο) in ver. 34, and shows that ‘that’ depends upon ‘I am 
sending,’ not upon ‘ye shall kill,’ etc. God does not cease to 
send His messengers, because they are as a rule rejected; each 
generation has its opportunity. Christ acts in the same way with 
Christian missionaries. ‘The Divine will is that all should listen 
and be saved. But with this desire is combined the just decree 
that those who refuse to listen shall be condemned; and 
therefore the condemnation of the rebellious may be said to be, 
not only the result, but the purpose, of the sending of the 
messengers. In Jewish thought, the actual issues of events were 
often regarded as indistinguishable from Divine purposes, and 
‘in order that’ (iva, ὅπως) was used where we should rather say 
‘so that’ (ὥστε). Here we must once more remark the serene 
and confident authority with which Christ assumes the 
prerogatives of Providence. He is doing exactly what God did 
under the old dispensation, with similar desire and persistence, 
and with similar result. 

There can be no doubt that the person who was slain 
‘between the sanctuary and the altar,’ was not the son of 
Barachiah, but the son of Jehoiada (2 Chron. xxiv. 20-22). The 
son of Barachiah was the Prophet ; and we have no reason for 
believing that the Prophet was murdered. Moreover, there is 
an obvious reason for selecting the son of Jehoiada as a limit. 
In the Jewish Bible, Chronicles comes last, and therefore, as 
‘the blood of Abel’ is the first murder in the Bible, so ‘the 
blood of Zachariah’ is the last, although in point of time that of 
Uriah by Jehoiakim (Jer. xxvi. 23) took place later.2 In Lk. xi. 
51, ‘son of Barachiah’ is omitted, and there need be no doubt 
that here the insertion is a mechanical slip, either of the 
Evangelist or of a very early copyist. We are not to suppose 
that the words were uttered by our Lord, who probably said 
‘Zachariah,’ without mentioning whose son he was. A further 


1See Moulton’s Winer, pp. 573, 5743 J. ΗΠ. Moulton, Gram. of N.T. 
Gr. pp. 206-208. 
2 See Ryle, Canon of the O.T. p. 141. 


XXII. 35, 86] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 323 


reason for selecting these two murders might be that in both 
cases it is stated that a reckoning for them would be made: 
‘The voice of thy brother’s blood crieth unto Me from the 
ground’ (Gen. iv. 10) ; ‘The Lord look upon it and require it’ 
(2 Chron. xxiv. 22). Three times blood is mentioned in this 
verse. 

The omission of ‘son of Barachiah’ here (δὲ and four cursives) is an 
attempt to avoid the difficulty ; and the insertion of the words in Lk. xi. 51 
(D, Syr-Cur. and two cursives) is an attempt to bring the two Gospels into 
harmony. The attempts to find a son of Barachiah different from the 
Prophet, to whom the words might apply, may be neglected; also the 
suggestion that Jehoiada may have had Barachiah as a second name. The 
simplest explanation is that ‘Zachariah Son of Barachiah’ was a familiar 
expression and was written mechanically. But the Evangelist, or the early 


scribe, may have believed that the Zachariah who was slain in the Temple 
was the Prophet. See DCG., art. ‘ Barachiah.’ 


‘Whom ye slew’ (ὃν ἐφονεύσατε) shows that Christ is thinking 
of the Jewish nation as a whole, guilty of what was done by its 
representatives in many generations. Our Lord does not mean 
that the Scribes and Pharisees of His own day were responsible 
for murders committed by their forefathers centuries before that 
time. But the guilt of wickedness is increased by the accumula- 
tion of previous instances and warnings. Each generation that 
condemns the wickedness of its predecessors, and yet repeats 
the wickedness, is more guilty than its predecessors and has 
more to answer for. Moreover, it is one of the penalties of sin, 
a special penalty to warn us from committing it, that the 
suffering which it invariably produces spreads to those who are 
innocent. In this sense, God visits the iniquity of the fathers 
upon the children, and nations reap the whirlwind from the wind 
which previous generations have sown. Yet even in such cases 
the generation which reaps the full consequences of the original 
wrong-doing is so far guilty, if it has not taken warning and 
endeavoured to remedy the evil. But, in another and truer 
sense, ‘the soul that sinneth, it shall die: the son shall not bear 
the iniquity of the father, neither shall the father bear the iniquity 
of the son’ (Ezek. xviii. 20). This is only imperfectly realized 
in this world, but it is rigidly true when the consequences of sin 
both in this world and in the next are assessed and assigned. 
The same solemn assurance, ‘ Verily I say to you,’ is found in 
both Mt. and Lk.1 This generation, which will fill the measure 
of iniquity full, is the one which will reap the full consequences 
of centuries of sin. 

The lament over Jerusalem is given by Lk. in quite a 
different connexion, neither as following on the saying about 


1 Lk., as writing for Gentiles, turns the Hebraistic du into the more 
classical val, 


324 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXIII. 37 


Abel and Zacharias, nor as an incident in the last days at 
Jerusalem. He connects it (xiii. 34, 35) with another severe 
utterance respecting the Holy City, on which it follows quite 
naturally. But the connexion here is equally natural, and is 
more probable, inasmuch as on this occasion the Messiah had 
Jerusalem before His eyes, whereas, according to Lk., He was 
far away at the time. Both connexions, however, are so suitable 
that there is no need to conjecture a third. And it is not likely 
that such words were uttered twice, and in each case with the 
remarkable transitions from the address in the second person 
singular (Ἱερουσαλὴμ ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ) to the third singular (αὐτήν), 
thence back to the second singular (τὰ τέκνα cov), and finally to 
the second plural (ἠθελήσατε). We may be well content to 
accept, as the true historical setting, the context which is given us 
here. The thought of how different all might have been had the 
nation’s leaders taken warning from the sins of their forefathers, 
and listened to the preaching of the Baptist and the Messiah, 
leads Christ to close His stern denunciation of the leaders and 
utter a lamentation over the city that they have misled. What is 
now her abiding character? She is a murderess and a rebel 
against Jehovah, the slayer of Prophets and the stoner of those 
whom He sent to her. 

The doubled address is evidence of emotion and concern ; 
comp. vil. 22; κι Χ' (41, ΣΧΠ 21; οὶ (ax et ass the 
inhabitants of Jerusalem (1 Mac. i. 38) that are addressed, not 
the nation as a whole (Is. i. ὃ; iii. 16, iv. 4, xxxvii. 22; Zech. 
ix. 93 Joel i. 6) Ll xix a4) xd. .285 ay ΣΡ ΝΠ: 
‘how often’ must refer to frequent visits of the Messiah to 
Jerusalem which are not mentioned in the Synoptic Gospels, and 
is therefore a strong incidental confirmation of the Fourth 
Gospel. 10. Strauss allows that ‘“‘all evasions are here in vain,” 
the words must refer to earlier visits of Jesus to the city; but he 
denies that Jesus ever uttered the words, which he assigns to 
some apocryphal source (LZ. Jesu Kvrit., 1835, 1. p. 444; L. Jesu 
7 das deutsche Volk, 1864, p. 249). This violent criticism is 
parallel to that which denies that xi. 27 was ever spoken by 
Jesus. See Zahn, Linleitung, i. p. 446. The danger from 
which Christ would have protected Jerusalem, as a hen protects 
her brood from ‘‘the wheeling hawk on high,” is the judgment 
which is about to fall upon it. Comp. Is. xxxi. 5; Ps. xci. 4; 
Ruth ii. 12; 2 Esdr. 1. 30. ‘How often I would’ (ποσάκις 

1 The exactness with which the wording has been preserved in both places 
extends to the form ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. Everywhere else in his Gospel Mt. has 
Ἰεροσόλυμα, even in reporting the words of Christ (ν. 35, xx. 18), whose 
Aramaic would be better represented by ᾿Ιερουσαλήμ. In this solemn address 


Mt. has kept the older and more sacred form, all the more so as being more 
suitable for personification. In xx. 18 he follows Mk. 


XXIII. 38, 39] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 325 


ἠθέλησα), and just as often ‘ye would not’ (οὐκ ἠθελήσατε). The 
two verbs are in emphatic and sorrowful opposition. In Jn. i. 5, 
10, 11, a similar effect is produced by repeating the substantive. 
‘Your house is being left to you’ (38) ; it is being abandoned 
to the consequences of your accumulated misdeeds, ‘left’ to its 
fate. ‘Your house’ in this context can hardly mean anything 
but Jerusalem. ‘This house’ (Jer. xxii. 5, xxvi. 6) is not 
parallel, and does not warrant our interpreting ‘your house’ of 
the Temple. In Enoch Ixxxix. 50, 51, 56, 66, 72, the ‘house’ 
is Jerusalem and the Temple is represented by a ‘tower’ (see 
Charles, ad /oc.); and in the Testament of Levi x. 5, we have: 
“For the house which the Lord shall choose shall be called 
Jerusalem, as is contained in the Book of Enoch the righteous.” 


Both here and in Lk., ‘desolate’ (ἔρημος) is a gloss to explain ‘is being 
left?: Β Land some old versions omit. In Lk. the evidence for omission is 
still stronger. The insertion weakens the sad irony of ‘is being left to you.’ 
The inhabitants of Jerusalem must now preserve, as best they may, the city 
which has hitherto been under Divine protection. Comp. xxiv. 40, xxvi. 56; 
Jn. x. 12; Jer. xii. 7. The ὑμῖν is dat. tncommodi: ‘to your sorrow.’ The 
Book of Enoch describes how God ‘‘ forsook that their house and their tower, 
and gave them all into the hands of the lions to tear and devour them” 
(Ixxxix. 56), a passage which is alluded to in the Epistle of Barnabas (xvi. 4) 
as ‘scripture.’ The Apocalypse of Baruch has: ‘‘ Enter ye enemies, and 
come ye adversaries; for He who kept the house has forsaken” (viii. 2). 
And the Testaments: “Τῆς Temple, which the Lord shall choose, shall be 
desolate (ἔρημος ἔσται) through your uncleanness, and ye shall be captives 
unto all the nations” (Zevz xv. 1). Can ἔρημος have got into Mt. xxiii. 38 
from this passage? Comp. xvi. 4. Comp. the famous μεταβαίνωμεν ἐντεῦθεν 
(Joseph. &. J. VI. v. 3) and audita major humana vox, excedere deos (Tac. 
Hist. v. 13). Contrast Exod. xxix. 45. 


The concluding warning (39) is given with special solemnity 
(λέγω ὑμῖν) and great assurance (οὐ μή). It seems to look back 
to xxi. 9. When the multitudes and the children welcomed 
Jesus with Hosannas as the Messiah, the hierarchy were moved 
with indignation, and wished Jesus to put a stop to the acclama- 
tions. He assures them here that, until they can themselves 
take up this welcome to Him, they will never see Him again as 
their Messiah. His mission to them as their Saviour is closed. 
If that relation to them is ever to be renewed, the initiative must 
come from them. What He has said and done for them ought 
to have sufficed for their conversion, and no more teaching will 
be granted to them. The little that still remains to be given 
will be for those who have accepted Him, for the faithful few 
among His disciples. But opportunity for conversion will always 
remain open, and it is for them to see if they will avail themselves 
of it. He will certainly return, and it is possible that He may 
then find an Israel ready to believe on Him as One who cometh 
as the representative of God (ἐν ὀνόματι Κυρίου). 


326 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIII. 


These sorrowful words of warning are the Messiah’s farewell 
to His people. He never again taught in public, and perhaps 
He never again entered the Temple. That Jn. xvii. was spoken 
in the Temple-courts is an attractive conjecture, but it is devoid 
of evidence. It was perhaps only a few hours after the uttering 
of these Woes upon the teachers, and this lamentation over 
the inhabitants of Jerusalem, that the Sanhedrin met to consider 
how they might destroy Him who had uttered them. That was 
their answer to His condemnation of their past and His warnings 
respecting their future. 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xxiii. : τότε (1), ὑποκριτής (13, 15, 23, 
25, 27, 29), yéevva (15, 33), ὀμνύναι (16, 18, 20, 21, 22), τάφος (27), φαίνεσθαι 
(28), γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν (33), ἰδού (34, 38). Peculiar: ὁ πατὴρ ὁ οὐράνιος (9), 
ἡ βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (13), ἐγὼ ἀποστέλλω (34); peculiar to this chapter : 
φυλακτήριον (5), καθηγητής (10 625), ἄνηθον (23), κύμινον (23), διὔλίζειν (24), 
κώνωψ (24), παροψίς (25, 26), παρομοιάζειν (27), νοσσίον (37). 

Mt. omits the narrative of the Widow’s Mites (Mk. xii. 41-44; Lk. xxi. 
1-4), and Wright notices that ‘‘ widows are not once mentioned in S. 
Matthew, though S. Mark speaks of them in two passages and S. Luke in 
six. . . . In the first Gospel women are as much kept in the background as 
they are brought to the front in the third” (p. 126). Yet Mt. several times 
mentions women where the other Evangelists do not ; e.g. the women and 
children at the feeding of the 5000 and of the 4000, the mother of the sons of 
Zebedee (twice), and Pilate’s wife; he introduces two women into the 
narrative of Peter’s denials, where Mk., Lk., and Jn. have only one; and he 
alone records the parable of the Ten Virgins. About the prominence of 
women in Lk. there is no question. 

Hippolytus (Ref Her. v. 3) quotes ver. 27, with an interpretation added, 
as if it were part of our Lord’s words: ‘‘ This, they say, is that which was 
spoken: Ye are whited sepulchres, full, they say, within of dead men’s bones, 
because the living man ts not in you.” 


XXIV. XXV. Discourses on the Last Things. 


The literature of the period which preceded and followed the 
Birth of Christ shows that the minds of many Jews were deeply 
interested in events connected with the end of the world, which 
it was supposed was near at hand. In evidence of this we have 
the Book of Enoch, the Psalms of Solomon, the Assumption of 
Moses, the Book of Jubilees, the Ascension of Isaiah, the Fourth ~ 

300k of Ezra (our 2 Esdras), the Apocalypse of Baruch, and the 
Book of the Secrets of Enoch. It is evident that this interest in 
revelations respecting the consummation of all things is reflected 
in the Gospels, and especially in the Synoptics. It had a twofold 
source ; on the one hand, the utterances of Psalmists and Prophets, 
and especially Ezekiel and Daniel; on the other hand, certain 
elements in heathen religions, and especially the religion of 
Persia. It was perhaps inevitable that our Lord should make 
use of these Jewish conceptions and expectations as vehicles for 


ΧΧιν.] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 327 


His own teaching. There was much important truth wrapped 
up in them, and apart from the form in which popular thought 
had invested it the truth could hardly be made intelligible to 
the Jews of that day. But, as we might expect, it was the 
eschatology which was derived from Psalmists and Prophets, 
rather than that which came from contact with Persia during the 
Captivity, that Jesus adopted for His own purposes. And “so 
far as He took over the transcendent supernatural side of the 
expectation, He transformed and spiritualized while He adopted 
it.” In adopting, He “transmuted the apocalyptic tradition.” 
(Sanday, Recent Research, pp. 64, 112). 

And there was much need of this transforming and spiritual- 
izing process ; for there were gross elementsin Jewish conceptions 
of the consummation of the existing age; there was much that 
was political and even sensual in the way in which Jews pictured 
to themselves the details of the approaching crisis. ‘The Messiah, 
as the agent of Jehovah, was to appear in the clouds at the head 
of a triumphant host, was to put down Roman rule and all other 
earthly sovereignty, and on the ruins of all was to establish His 
own Kingdom, one feature of which would be a perpetual banquet. 
At this banquet the descendants of Abraham were to sit on 
thrones of glory, from which they could see the discomfiture of 
the excluded Gentiles and Samaritans. From these crude and 
carnal accessories the apocalyptic passages in the Gospels are 
free. But at the same time it must be admitted that some of the 
language used, and perhaps a great deal of it, is symbolical, and 
is not to be understood in a strictly literal sense. Our Lord 
could not have taught His disciples what He had to reveal to 
them respecting these last things, unless His language was ac- 
commodated to these ideas, without which they could hardly 
have understood anything at all. He had many things to say to 
them, but they could not bear them then, and He perhaps 
employed phraseology which was misapprehended at the time, 
but has been slowly interpreted by the experiences of Christendom. 
Though not intended to veil, but to reveal, it was to those who 
heard it elusive ; the significance of it escaped them for the time. 
And we must make allowance for the possibility that, through 
misapprehension at the time, some of His sayings have been 
misreported. 

It is possible that in these discourses on the Last Things we 
have a sevenfold arrangement; xxiv. 4-14, 15-28, 29-31, 32-51, 
XXV. I-13, 14-30, 31-46. But this is by no means so clear as 
the seven parables in xiii. and the seven Woes in xxiil. 

We should certainly not gather from these apocalyptic dis- 
courses that our Lord was predicting the coming of the Kingdom 
through the gradual perfecting of the human race or of Christen- 


328 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXIV.1-8 


dom. The Jewish idea, that the great change is to be a sudden 
catastrophe, of which the chief feature is to be the coming of the 
Messiah on the clouds, is neither condemned nor discarded. 
The reports of His words show that He taught this Himself to 
the end. This, in the main, is what He seems to have meant 
by His Coming, and He left an impresssion that it would take 
place soon. ‘There were other senses in which He spoke of His 
coming again,—to the disciples after His Resurrection, to His 
Church after the Ascension, to His faithful followers throughout 
all time, to the world in signal acts of judgment; and it may be 
that His words were not always distinct enough to show which 
meaning was intended. But His words about His Coming in 
the clouds to inaugurate the Kingdom are as well authenticated 
as anything that He is reported to have said, and it is not 
impossible that at one time they were preserved as a separate 
document which formed the substance of Mk. xi., and therefore 
of Mt. xxiv. and of Lk. xxi! Nowhere else in Mk. have we so 
long a discourse, without break or interruption; and the easiest 
way to account for this peculiarity is to suppose that here at any 
rate Mk. is using written material. Here Mt. is again using Mk., 
but he has expanded what is reported in Mk. xiii. with utterances 
on similar subjects which were perhaps spoken at some other 
time; yet the result is a connected whole, in which the future 
is sketched, down to the time of Christ’s return. For tables 
showing the correspondences with Mk. see Allen, p. 252. 


XXIV. 1-8. The Destruction of the Temple foretold. 


This is the incident which leads to the apocalyptic discourse, 
and in the introductory verses Mk. is much more definite than 
either Mt. or Lk. After closing His public teaching, the Messiah 
leaves the Temple, and then one of the disciples, “himself no 
doubt a Galilean to whom this great piece of architecture was not 
too familiar” (Salmon), directs Christ’s attention to the magnifi- 
cence of the structure, and receives the startling announcement that 
it is to be utterly destroyed. No one makes any comment, but 
evidently no one doubts the truth of the-prediction. A little 
later, when Christ has sat down on the Mount of Olives opposite 
the Temple, the three elect disciples with the addition of Andrew? 


1This hypothesis is wholly different from the view that a spurious 
apocalypse lies buried in the Synoptic report of our Lord’s eschatological 
discourse. ‘It has long been a favourite idea with some Continental writers, 
an entirely mistaken one, I believe, that the record of our Lord’s apocalyptic 
discourse in the first three Gospels includes a kernel or core transcribed from 
a purely Jewish Apocalypse” (Hort, 7he Apocalypse of St. John t.-z22. p. xiii}. 

2 These are the four whose call Mk. places at the beginning of his Gospel 
(i. 16-20). 


XXIV. 1-8] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 329 


ask when this amazing destruction will take place, and what sign 
there will be of its being at hand. This is both more definite 
and more probable than the version of the incident in Mt. One 
disciple might well make the exclamation recorded, but the 
company of disciples would hardly ‘show Him the buildings of 
the Temple,’ which both He and they had often seen before. 
Again, it is more probable that a few of the disciples, and those 
who were most intimate with the Master, should ask the con- 
fidential question about the date of the great crisis, than that all 
should do so. It was a matter which could not safely be made 
generally known, perhaps not even to all the disciples. And, 
where Mt. adds to the narrative of Mk., the addition looks like a 
touch from a later age, to make the question about the date a 
more suitable introduction to the discourse which follows. Mt. 
represents the disciples as asking for a sign, not of the approaching 
destruction, but ‘of ‘Thy coming, and of the end of the world.’! 
Yet our Lord had said nothing about His going away and 
coming again, and the end which He had predicted was that of 
the Temple, not that of the world. All three Evangelists re- 
present the disciples as asking for ‘a sign’ as to the fulfilment of 
the prediction ; and all three show that Christ did not give them 
one. He warns them to be on their guard against being misled 
by what might seem to be signs but were not such, yet He does 
not Himself give any sure sign. 

It is here (3) that for the first time in the Gospel we meet 
with the word ‘ Parousia’ (παρουσία), which in the Gospels is 
peculiar to Mt. and is in Mt. confined to this chapter (3, 27, 37, 
39). It occurs in all the groups of the Pauline Epistles, excepting 
the Pastoral Epistles, being specially frequent in 1 and 2 Thes. 
It would seem therefore to have been in common use, almost as 
a technical term for the Coming of Christ in glory, some time 
before the First Gospel was written. This is perhaps an additional 
reason for the view that separate reports of this discourse may 
have been in circulation before either Mk. or Mt. wrote; in one of 
these the term παρουσία may have been used. It intimates that 
the return of the Messiah in glory will not result, like the First 
Coming, in a transitory stay, but will inaugurate an adiding 
presence. The expression ‘Second Coming’ is not found in 
Scripture, but it occurs in Justin (77). 40; comp. 110, 121, and 
Apfol. i. 52); also in the Secrets of Enoch (xxxii. 1), not, however, 
of Christ, but of God. See Hastings’ DZ. and DCG., art. 
‘Parousia.’ In the Testaments the term παρουσία is found of 
God’s appearing: “And among men of other race shall My 
Kingdom be consummated, until the salvation of Israel come, 


1Mt. may intend this addition to look back to xxiii. 39, where Christ’s 
return is alluded to; but even there nothing is said about the end of the age. 


330 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 4 


until the appearing (τῆς παρουσίας) of the God of righteousness, 
so that Jacob may rest in peace” (/udah xxii. 2). For ‘con- 
summation of the age’ (συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος), or ‘end of the 
world,’ comp. Xill. 40, 49. 


XXIV. 4-14. Lvents which must precede the End. 


A great deal must happen first, and therefore the disciples 
must not be led astray by rumours that He has already returned. 
There will be false Christs, wars and tumults, famines and 
earthquakes, persecutions by the heathen, treachery among 
Christians, false prophets ; and yet the Gospel shall be preached 
in all the world. Not till then will the end come, and the 
disciples must not allow their eager desire for the consummation 
to betray them into a premature belief that the Coming has 
taken place, or is very near. ‘In My Name,’ or ‘on the basis 
of My Name’ (ἐπὶ τῷ ὀνόματί μου, xviii. 5), means that a claim 
to the title of A/essiah was the ground of their pretensions: it 
is not meant that they would call themselves ‘Jesus.’ But ‘the 
Christ’ is an addition made by Mt. In Mk. it is simply ‘I am 
(He),’ using ἐγώ εἰμι in the Messianic sense: see Westcott on 
Jn. viii. 24. But the main point is not so much their method 
of deception as their great success: ‘they will lead many astray’ 
(πόλλους πλανήσουσιν). Is. xix. 2 may be at the back of what 
follows: ‘They shall fight every one against his brother, and 
every one against his neighbour; city against city, and kingdom 
against kingdom.’ Comp. 2 Esdr. xv. 14, 15.2 

The ‘beginning of travail’ (ἀρχὴ ὠδίνων) perhaps includes no 
thought of these things being the 477/4-pangs which precede a 
happier era. The word may mean ‘pangs,’ without any idea 
of birth. Indeed it is sometimes used of the pains of death 
(Ps. xvill. 5, cxvi. 3). What is meant here is acute sufferings 
which are likely to increase. Comp. Book of Jubilees, xxiii. 18, 
19; Apocalypse of Baruch, xxvii.—xxix., where the travail-pains 
of the Messiah are described with details that in several respects 
resemble what is described here; and Book of Enoch, xcix. 
4-7, ©. 1-. 

In the prediction of persecutions (9-14) Mt. is not so close 
to Mk. xiii. 9-13 as the previous verses are to Mk. xiii. 3-8. 
3ut Mt. has already (x. 17-22) given a closer parallel to Mk. 
xili. 9-13, and this reduplication seems to show that there has 


1 Δεῖ γενέσθαι (6) from Dan. ii. 28; comp. Rev. i. 1. In Gospels and 
Acts δεῖ is frequent of what has been decreed by God. Perhaps ἐγερθήσεται 
(7), which is in all three, is to be taken as passive, ‘will be raised up’ by 
the powers of evil. See small print near the end of ch. vii. for Justin’s use 
of this passage. 


XXIV. 9-14] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 331 


been some confusion in the accounts. Here Mt omits all 
mention of being beaten in svzagogues, and for ‘ye shall be 
hated of all men’ he substitutes ‘ye shall be hated of all she 
nations, thus freeing the Jews from the charge of persecution 
and confining this prediction to the Gentiles! The mention of 
false prophets at this point (comp. ver. 24), the mutual hatred, the 
increase of iniquity, and the cooling of love are all peculiar to 
Mt. ; and these expansions emphasize the fact that persecution 
from without is to be accompanied by grievous deterioration 
among the Christians themselves. They will even betray one 
another to the persecutors. This evil element has been 
mentioned before, in a less definite manner, in the parables of 
the Tares and of the Net (xiii. 38, 39, 48, 49), of the Unmerciful 
Servant (xviii. 32), and of the Wedding Garment (xxii. 11); but 
what is intimated here is a gradual corruption in Christian 
society, and it is to this no less than to the persecution by the 
heathen that ‘he that endureth to the end’ (13) applies; comp. 
x. 22. Here also there are remarkable parallels in 2 Esdras: 
‘But iniquity shall be increased above that which thou now 
seest, or that thou hast heard long ago’ (v. 2); ‘Whosoever 
remaineth after all these things that I have told thee of, he shall 
be saved, and shall see My salvation, and the end of My world’ 
(vi. 25); ‘Every one that shall be saved, and shall be able to 
escape by his works, or by faith, shall be preserved, and shall 
see My salvation’ (ix. 7, 8). See Hort on Rev. i. 9. 

Yet, in spite of persecution from without, and unfaithfulness 
within, the Gospel continues to spread, until the whole inhabited 
world is reached and it becomes a testimony to all the nations. 
That is, as in the case of the martyrdom of Stephen (Acts viii. 
1-4), persecution would help to spread the Gospel. The 
martyrs would be preachers in councils and courts to audiences 
that would otherwise not easily be reached; and the flight of 
Christians from one city to another would lead to still greater 
dissemination of the word. 

‘And then shall the end come’ (14). These words are in 
neither Mk. nor Lk. Indeed, hardly anything in vv. 10-14 is 
common to Mt. and Lk., and very little is common to Mt. and 
Mk. ‘The end’ of course means the end of the age, and in 
interpreting that we must remember the subject of this discourse 
and the persons to whom it is addressed. Our Lord is speaking 
of the overthrow of Jerusalem and of the Temple to men who 
would inevitably think of such an overthrow as the end of the 


1 Comp. Justin, Afo/. i. 4, where it is said that to confess to being a 
Christian is regarded as proof of guilt, and Tert. Afol, 2: tllud solum 
expectatur quod odto publico necessarium est, confessio nominis, non 
examinatio criminis, 


332 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XXIV. 15 


age. It is quite possible that they would regard the destruction 
of the Holy City and of the Temple-worship as the end of the 
world. It is quite possible that the Evangelist would so under- 
stand it, for he could have no expectation of an interval of many 
centuries between the Ascension and the Return. But the 
fact, if it be a fact, that the Apostles and the Evangelist under- 
stood the Messiah’s words in this sense is no proof that this 
was the sense in which He uttered them. What was important 
for them to know was that the Temple was doomed and its end 
near. Whether its end would coincide with the end of the world 
would be taught by experience. 


XXIV. 15-28. Events connected with the Destruction of 
Jerusalem. ; 


Our Lord has answered neither of the questions put to Him 
by the disciples respecting (as Mk. has it) the destruction of 
the Temple, or (as Mt. has it) the Second Coming. He has 
not said when it will come, or what sign will announce its 
approach. He has merely said that a great deal will happen 
first. He now, with regard to the end of the Temple and of 
the city, gives enough information to guide the disciples through 
a time of great trouble. There are here two remarkable 
differences between Mt. and Mk., while Lk., writing later, differs 
very considerably from both. The words, ‘which was spoken 
of by Daniel the Prophet,’ are not in Mk.; and ‘standing where 
he ought not’ in Mk. (ἑστηκότα ὅπου οὐ δεῖ) becomes ‘standing 
in [the] holy place’ (ἑστὸς ἐν τόπῳ ἁγίῳ) in Mt. The masculine 
participle in Mk. shows that the writer thought of ‘the abomina- 
tion of desolation’ as personal,—either an idolater or an 
idolatrous image; whereas the neuter participle in Mt. leaves 
the interpretation of ‘the abomination of desolation’ indefinite. 
The expression, as Mt. points out, comes from Daniel (xi. 31; 
comp. ix. 17, xil. 11; 1 Mac. i. 54, 59), and evidently refers 
to something idolatrous. ‘Standing in a@ holy place’ (there is 
no article) probably means within the Temple-enclosure. In 
Acts xxi. 28, ὃ ἅγιος τύπος means the Temple; and comp. Acts 
vi. 13. But in 2 Mac. ii. 18 it means the Holy Land; and 
either the Holy Land (B. Weiss) or the Holy City may be the 
meaning here. See on 1 Mac. i. 54 in the Camb. Bible for 
Schools. 

But of greater interest than either ‘the abomination’ or the 
‘holy place’ is the significance of the parenthetical ‘Let him 
that readeth understand,’ which is in both Mk. and Mt., but is 
omitted by Lk. Are the words part of our Lord’s speech? and 
do they call attention to the places in Daniel where the 


XXIV. 156-50] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 333 


‘abomination of desolation’ is mentioned? In Mt. it looks as 
if this was the case, owing to the previous mention of Daniel. 
But in Mk., where there is no such mention, another interpreta- 
tion is more probable. It is the Evangelist, or the source from 
which he drew, that calls attention to the words here spoken by 
Christ. In the latter case the meaning will be: “All readers 
of this ought now to be on the alert, for the destruction which 
the Lord foretold must be near at hand.” ‘This would imply 
that Jerusalem was not yet surrounded, but was in danger of 
being so, by the heathen, at the time when Mk. wrote. But 
this argument cannot be used of Mt. (see Introduction ; Date). 
In Lk. these words of warning are omitted, probably as being 
no longer of any use. 

If ‘holy place’ (15) be understood as meaning the Holy 
Land, then ‘Judza’ (16) may mean the Land of the Jews, 
Palestine as a whole; comp. xix. 1. The meaning would then 
be that, when the heathen host invades the Holy Land, all the 
faithful therein are to flee across the Jordan into the hill-country 
of Persea. But it is more probable that the province of Judea 
is meant, as in ii. 1, 5, 22, and that ‘the mountains’ are the 
mountains of Judea. It was thither that Mattathias and his 
sons fled, in order to carry on a guerilla warfare against the 
officers of Epiphanes. These mountains abounded in caves 
and recesses difficult of access. Comp. 1 Mac. ii. 28. The 
horrors of this heathen invasion will be so great that not a 
moment is to be lost, when the alarm has once been given. ‘The 
most necessary equipment must be sacrificed rather than risk 
being overtaken; and it will be wise to pray that this sudden 
flight may not have to be made in stormy weather.'| The words 
‘nor yet on a sabbath’ (μηδὲ σαββάτῳ), whatever the weather 
may be, are probably an addition made by Mt., who here again 
shows his Judaistic sympathies: comp. v. 18, x. 6, 23, XV. 31, 
xix. 9, xxiii. 3.2 The incident recorded 1 Mac. ‘ii. 32-38 
explains how disastrous flight on a sabbath might be. The 
first believers would almost all be Jewish Christians, who would 
have scruples about going more than a sabbath-day’s journey 
on the sabbath. In B.c. 320 Ptolemy 1. captured Jerusalem on 
a sabbath (Jos. Av/. xu. i. 1; comp. ΧΙ]. vi. 2; B. /. I. vil. 3). 
Whatever be the source of these words, they indicate that this 


1 This, rather than ‘in the winter,’ seems to be the meaning of χειμῶνος, 
as in xvi. 3 and Acts xxvii. 20. But either makes good sense. 

2It is possible that ‘nor yet on a sabbath’ was in the original source, 
and that Mk. omitted it as not of interest to Gentile readers; but it is 
equally possible that Mt. inserted it, with or without authority. Palestinian 
tradition may have contained it. Josephus (/reface to B. J. 4) says that the 
calamities of all men from the beginning of the world were less than those 
of the Jews in his estimate. Comp. the Assumption of Moses, viii. 1, 


334 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXIV. 22 


Gospel was written at a time when the sabbath was still observed 
by Jewish Christians. 

‘No flesh would have been saved’ (for the Hebrew idioms 
see Swete, ad Joc.) is commonly and rightly restricted to physical 
deliverance. The loss of life was enormous, although the siege 
lasted only four or five months, from April or May to September ; 
and Titus himself confessed that, if God had not been on the 
side of the Romans, they could never have succeeded as they 
did (Jos. B. δ vi. ix. τ). Zahn would interpret the words as 
meaning that every one would have succumbed to the prolonged 
persecution and would have apostatized. But ver. 13 (x. 22) does 
not warrant this interpretation. Everywhere being ‘saved’ must 
be explained in accordance with the context. The meaning can 
hardly be that, if the tribulation had continued, the elect would 
have abjured the faith. That many others were saved from 
death for the sake of the elect makes excellent sense. The 
presence of ten righteous men would have saved Sodom from 
destruction (Gen. xviii. 32). How much more might the presence 
of faithful Christians have caused a lessening of the death-roll at 
the overthrow of Jerusalem? Comp. the opening words of the 
Book of Enoch: ‘‘The words of the blessing of Enoch, where- 
with he blessed the elect and righteous, who will be living in the 
day of tribulation.” There, however, it is the time of Jd/essings 
that shall be shortened, as a judgment on sinners (Ixxx. 2). 

The warning about false Messiahs and false prophets (23-28) 
is much longer in Mt. than in Mk., but some of the additional 
matter in Mt. is found in Lk. in a different connexion (xvii. 23, 
24, 37). As before, our Lord does not give a clear sign of the 
coming end, but warns the disciples against being misled by false 
signs. ‘The final event would be sudden and everywhere visible ; 
there would be no sending of tidings that it was on its way, or 
had begun in any one place. The Messiah would not lie hidden 
for a time and become gradually known; His appearance would 
at once carry conviction as to who He was, and there would be 
no need to learn this from others. The report that He was 
in one particular spot was enough to prove that the report was 
false. 

The proverbial saying about the carcase (πτῶμα) and the 
vultures? (ἀετοί) is in a very general form, and is capable of 
various applications, but here it seems to refer back to the false 
Christs and false prophets. A time of severe crisis is a great 
opportunity for impostors. When fanaticism has taken the place 


1 «The Griffon Vulture (Gyfs fulvis) is the bird which is often mentioned 
in the Scriptures under the name of eagle. The well-known passage, 
‘ Wheresoever the carcase is,’ refers to the Vulture, and exactly expresses its 
habits” (J. G. Wood, Zhe Handy Natural History, p. 243). 


XXIV. 29] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 335 


of religion, there will always be charlatans ready to turn the 
corruptio optimt to their own account. There may also be a 
reference to God’s judgments coming upon a corrupt state of 
society, and (as a special illustration of this principle) the 
Romans coming on the Jewish Church and nation. A. direct 
reference to the eagles on the Roman standards is less likely. 


XXIV. 29-31. Zhe Close of the Age foretold. 


The correspondence between Mt. and Mk. is here again very 
close; but Mt. introduces this part of the discourse with 
‘immediately’ (εὐθέως), which is so characteristic of Mk., but 
which Mk. here omits. We may suppose that in the original 
report there was no ‘immediately,’ our Lord having given no 
intimation that the interval would be very brief (vv. 8, 14 roe) 
the contrary), but that Mt. inserted it, under the impression, 
which was so general when he wrote, that the Coming would 
follow very quickly upon the overthrow of Jerusalem. In that 
case, we may compare ‘I come quickly’ (ἔρχομαι ταχύ) in 
Rey. xxii. 20. In all three Gospels, the interval between the 
tribulation of Jerusalem and the Coming is described as one of 
great physical disturbance, especially in the heavens.! But Mt. 
inserts two predictions which are not in Mk.: that there ‘shall 
appear the sign of the Son of Man in heaven; and then shall all 
the tribes of the earth mourn’; which two predictions are partly 
reproduced in Lk.: ‘There shall be signs . . . and upon the 
earth distress of nations.’ ‘The sign of the Son of Man’ is 
ambiguous. It may mean the sign that the Son of Man is about 
to appear; in which case the words would be an answer to the 
disciples’ question, ‘ What shall be the sign of Thy Coming ?’ (3). 
Or, possibly, the Son of Man is Himself the sign,—the sign that 
the consummation of the age has arrived; in which case there 
may be a direct reference to Dan. vii. 13: ‘Behold there was 
coming with the clouds of heaven one like unto a son of man’ 
(see Driver, ad /oc.). The second prediction looks like an 
adaptation of Zech. xii. 12: ‘And the land shall mourn, every 
family apart’ (καὶ κόψεται ἡ γῆ κατὰ φυλὰς φυλάς). The idea that 
‘the sign of the Son of Man’ is the cross, and that the Second 
Advent will be heralded by the appearance of a cross in the sky, 
is as old as Cyril of Jerusalem: ‘“ Now a sign truly characteristic 
of Christ is the cross: a luminous sign of a cross goes before the 
King” (απ. xv. 22). The same idea is found in Chrysostom, 


1 With ὁ ἥλιος σκοτισθήσεται comp. τοῦ ἡλίου σκοτιζομένου or σβεννυμένου 
(Δευΐ ἵν. 1). The meaning of ‘the powers of the heavens’ (al δυνάμεις τ. 
ovp.) is uncertain; either the heavenly bodies, or the forces which control 
them, Comp. Zev iii. 3. 


336 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXIV. 80, 31 


and apparently in Origen ;! but the Gospels give no support to 
it: and it is somewhat surprising in writers who are quite ready 
to interpret the sun, moon, and stars as symbolical. Thus, the 
moon is the Church, which will then receive no light from Christ 
who 15: the Sun, because the earth of carnal desires intervenes ; 
and the stars are the saints, who will then lose their influence. 
So that, while really existing, heavenly bodies are treated as 
symbols, language which is probably symbolical is interpreted 
very realistically of a visible luminous cross, darkening by its 
brilliance sun, moon, and stars. 

In the part of the prediction which is common to all three 
Gospels (‘They shall see the Son of Man... with power and 
great glory’) we again have Daniel (vii. 13) blended with 
Zechariah (xii. 10). A similar blending is found Rey. 1. 7, 
“ἐᾷ circumstance which increases the probability that the quota- © 
tion came as it stands from a book of excerpts” (Swete), of which 
both writers made use. Collections of ‘testimonies’ taken from 
the prophetical books were probably common. ‘On the clouds 
of heaven’ is almost synonymous with what follows; it means in 
superhuman majesty. The expression varies: ‘with the clouds 
of heaven’ (Dan. vil. 13); ‘with the clouds’ (Rev. i. 7); ‘in 
clouds’ (Mk. xili. 26); ‘in a cloud’ (Lk. xxi. 27). Both here 
and xxvi. 64, Mt. has ‘oz the clouds of heaven.’ 

With the sending forth of the Angels here compare that 
which is predicted xiii. 41, 49. Christ Himself had again and 
again tried to gather together a congregation of those who believed 
on Him (xxiii. 37),2 but had been thwarted by indifference and 
opposition: under the Christian dispensation a Church of His 
elect will have been formed throughout the world. ‘With a great 
sound of a trumpet’ 15 a detail which is not in Mk. It may have 
been taken from ‘the voice of a trumpet exceeding loud,’ which 
accompanied the thunders and lightnings at the giving of the 
Law upon Mount Sinai (Exod. xix. 16); or from the ‘great 
trumpet,’ which shall be blown when the Jewish nation is to be 
reunited after the great ordeal (Is. xxvii. 13), This prediction 
seems to be alluded to by St. Paul, 1 Thes. iv. 16 and-1 Cor. 
xv. 52. Comp. “Blow ye the trumpet in Zion, yea the holy 
trumpet of Jubilee. Stand up on high, O Jerusalem ; and behold 


1 See the quotations in Isaac Williams’ Devotional Commentary (7.1.6 Holy 
Week, pp. 289-293). He accepts this interpretation as correct. There is a 
passage in the Assumption of Moses (x. 5-7), which has considerable resem- 
blance to vv. 29, 30. If κόψονται. . . καὶ ὄψονται is a play upon words, 
this is one more piece of evidence that this Gospel is not a translation from 
the Hebrew ; comp. vi. 16, xxi. 41. 

2Comp. the Testaments: ‘‘ For through their tribes shall God appear 
on earth to save Israel, and He shall gather together (ἐπισυνάξει) righteous 
ones from the Gentiles” (Mafhialé viii. 3). Comp, Asher vil. 7. 


XXIV. 32,33] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 337 


thy children gathered from the East and the West together by 
the Lord” (Pss. of Solomon, xi. 1, 3). 


In the Testament of Abraham (A. xii.) there is the curious idea of ‘‘a 
fiery Angel with a trumpet containing fire,” who in company with three other 
Angels ‘‘ recorded, weighed, and tested souls” ; where the trumpet contain- 
ing fire seems to be used in the testing of souls, as a blow-pipe is used in 
testing metals (ed. M. R. James, pp. 39, 125). Here the trumpet is for 
summoning those at a distance, but ‘sound’ (φωνῆς) is of doubtful authority 
(BXTI Il). ‘From one end of heaven to the other’ (Mt.), lit. ‘from the ends 
of the heavens to their ends,’ is much more easy to understand than ‘ from the 
uttermost part of the earth to the uttermost part of heaven’ (Mk.), and it is 
probably a deliberate correction of a difficult expression, The meaning in 
each case is that every region in which there are any of the elect will be 
reached by the summons. ‘From the four winds’ occurs Zech. ii. 6; also in 
a Fayfim papyrus of the second century (Deissmann, Bzb/e Studies, p. 248). 


XXIV. 32-36. Zhe Lesson of the Fig-Tree; the Certainty 
of the Event and the Uncertainty of the Time. 


The points which have thus far been made known with 
regard to the disciples’ questions are these; that the End will 
not come until the Gospel has been preached to all nations, 
and that the End will be preceded by a variety of religious, 
political, and physical disturbances. Secondly, that the End 
will need no heralding sign, but will manifest itself to all in a 
way that will leave no doubt as to its character. No one will 
need to be told what it is, or that it has come. ‘These in- 
timations are now still further enforced by the parable of the 
budding fig-tree, by the assurance that the existing generation will 
witness a great crisis, and that the Lord’s words will have fulfilment. 

This passage raises two questions, neither of which can be 
answered with certainty. What is the nominative to ‘is nigh’ 
(ἐγγύς ἐστιν) in ver. 33? What is the meaning of ‘all these 
things’ (πάντα ταῦτα) in ver. 34? 

We may supply as a nominative to ‘is nigh’ either ‘the 
Son of Man’ from vv. 30, 31, which is the view taken by the 
Revisers: ‘know ye that /e is nigh.’ Or we may understand 
some such idea as ‘the new dispensation, the Messianic 
Kingdom,’ as is done by Lk., who expresses this: ‘know ye 
that the Kingdom of God is nigh. Or we may take a 
nominative from the parable in the preceding verse, as is done 
by Origen: ‘know ye that the summer (τὸ θέρος) is nigh.’ In 
this case, ‘the summer’ must be understood as a metaphorical 
expression for the Kingdom.! There is not much difference 
in sense, whichever of these methods we adopt. 


1 Tt is worth noting that τὸ θέρος, which is in all three Gospels in this 
sage, occurs nowhere else in the N.T.; also that ‘know ye’ may be ‘ye 
ow.’ 


22 


338 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXIV. 83-35 


The meaning of ‘all these things’ (Lk. has simply ‘all 
things,’ πάντα without ταῦτα) seems to be determined by the 
disciples’ question in ver. 3, and this in Mt. includes not merely 
the destruction of Jerusalem, but the Coming and the con- 
summation of the age. But it does not follow that, because 
Mt. understood it so, therefore our Lord said and meant this. 
We saw reason for doubting whether the disciples asked anything 
about the Coming or the end of the world, neither of which had 
been mentioned in Christ’s prediction of the overthrow of the 
Temple; and we need not make ‘all these things’ refer to 
anything beyond the judgment on Jerusalem and the tribulation 
which preceded the execution of it. If the Day of Judgment 
is in any way included, it is as being symbolized by the 
judgment on the guilty city. It is not satisfactory to extend 
the meaning of ‘this generation’ to future generations of either 
the Jewish or the whole human race. ‘This generation’ (} γενεὰ 
αὕτη) 15 an expression of common and definite meaning ;! viz. 
‘the generation which was alive when the words were spoken,’ 
many of whom did live to see ‘the abomination of desolation’ 
and the subsequent desolation of Jerusalem. Mt.’s whole 
Gospel is coloured with the conviction that the Second Advent 
was near and would follow closely upon the fall of the city. 
This conviction was dominant among the Christians of his 
day, and it probably influenced the wording of the traditions 
and documents which he used. We have constantly to re- 
member that we cannot be sure that we have got the exact 
words which our Lord employed; and in no utterance of His 
that has come down to us is the length of the interval between 
the destruction of the Temple and the end of the world in- 
timated. ‘Heaven and earth shall pass away’ perhaps looks 
back to ver. 29, where the beginning of a break-up of the 
universe seems to be indicated. But, as in ver. 35, the ‘passing 
away of heaven and earth’ may be a figurative expression for 
the end of the existing dispensation, of all that was regarded 
as most durable and permanent. Christ’s words will be more 
sure than anything,—His words in general, but especially His 
words about the coming judgment. That judgment is ex- 
pressed in symbolical language, but it is no mere image to 
terrify children; it represents something very real and very 
awful, and all who hear of it must take account of it in 
shaping their lives. Some of those who heard Christ’s words 
would live to see a stupendous example of what God’s judg- 
ments can be; but all have to remember that there is 
‘something still more stupendous to follow, something which 
_, Comp. xi. 16, xii, 41-45, xxiii. 36; Lk. xi. 50, 51, xvii. 25; Heb. 
11. 10. 


XXIV. 86] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 339 


concerns all mankind, but the date of which is known to God 
alone. 

Our Lord is reported to have used very strong language in 
order to make it quite clear to His hearers that, in what He 
has said, He has given no intimation as to the time of the Day 
of Judgment. ‘But of that day and hour knoweth no one, not 
even the Angels of heaven, nor yet the Son, but the Father 
only.’! Mk. has the same, with the unimportant difference 
of ‘or hour’ for ‘avd hour’; and he omits ‘only’ or ‘alone’ 
(εἰ μὴ ὃ πατήρ, without μόνος). The latter difference is signi- 
ficant. The important question is, whether the words ‘nor 
yet the Son’ (οὐδὲ 6 vids), which are certain in Mk., ought to 
be retained in Mt. 


They are omitted in AV. in harmony with many witnesses, some of which 
are ancient, but are retained in RV. in harmony with evidence which WH. 
regard as ‘overwhelming’ (δὲ and N°» BD, Lat-Vet. Aeth. Arm., Orig. 
Chrys. Hil.). It is not easy to decide. On the one hand, the words might 
easily be omitted on account of their difficulty ; on the other, they might be 
inserted in Mt. to assimilate with Mk. See Alford. But we have seen that 
Mt. nearly always omits or alters anything in Mk. which seems to encourage 
a low conception of the Messiah (see Introduction ; Sources, § 9), and it is 
not likely that he would have retained this explicit limitation of the Messiah’s 
knowledge. He has struck out statements which z/y ignorance on His 
part. Would he have left standing a confession that He was ignorant? 
Moreover, the addition of ‘alone’ (μόνος) after ‘except the Father’ looks 
like a wish to give the sense of Christ’s words, without the express admission 
that the Son, in this matter, shared the ignorance of men and Angels. In 
a different manner, Lk., who omits the whole verse, lets us know that he 
was aware of this limitation by Christ of His own knowledge, for he records 
words which imply the limitation: ‘It is not for you to know times or seasons, 
which the Father hath set within His own authority’ (Acts i. 7). But the 
suggestion that the whole verse was added in Church reading, to explain the 
fact that ‘this generation’ had passed away and yet the end of the world 

had not come, is not to be adopted. When Mk. and Mt. wrote, no one 

would have put into the mouth of Christ a confession of ignorance which 
He had never made. Zahn holds that both external and internal evidence 
favour the genuineness of οὐδὲ ὁ υἱός in Mt. (Zinlettung, ii. p. 252); and 
Wellhausen retains them, p. 124. 


Whether or no the momentous words were retained by Mt., 
we need not doubt that our Lord uttered them, and the meaning 
would seem to be: ‘Do not ask Me to tell you the date of 
the great crisis. God has not revealed it; not even to Me.’2 
What follows teaches the practical consequence of this universal 
ignorance as to the time of the end. 

1 Comp. Zech. xiv. 7; Psalms of Solomon xvii. 23: ‘‘in the time which 
Thou, O God, knowest.” 

3 The including of the Angels in the ignorance is in Mk, as well as in Mt. 
So also is the mention of the Angels in connexion with the end of the world 
(31). Here again our Lord seems to be giving special sanction to the doctrine 
that these are Angels, and that they have definite functions. Comp, xvi. 27, 
XVili, 10, ¥xii, 30, ΧΧΥ. 31, 41, ΧΧΥΪ. 53. 


340 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXIV. 37-42 


XXIV. 37-42. The Necessity for Watchfulness. 


Mt. is here parallel to Lk. xvii. 26-35; but each Evangelist 
would seem to have drawn from a different source. The end 
is certain, but the time of it is uncertain. What effect will this 
combination of certainty and uncertainty have upon mankind? 
The condition of things will be analogous (ὥσπερ) to that before 
the Deluge. Mankind generally will be wholly given up to 
material enjoyment; and this has always been so. ‘The 
certainty of death does not give seriousness to life, so long 
as the time of death is uncertain and possibly distant. Even 
the prospect of death within a comparatively short time does 
not always detach people from the cares and pleasures of this 
world. ‘The special point of the analogy is not that the genera- 
tion that was swept away by the Flood was exceptionally wicked ; 
none of the occupations mentioned are sinful; but that it was 
so absorbed in its worldly pursuits that it paid no attention to 
solemn warnings. Instead of saying: “It is certain to come; 
therefore we must make preparation and be always on the 
watch,” they said: ‘‘No one knows when it will come; therefore 
there is no need to trouble oneself about it yet. Other matters 
are much more urgent.” 

In the Gospels, the Flood is referred to only here=Lk. 
xvii. 27. It is rash to use such references (comp. Lk. xvii. 32) 
as proof that the incidents referred to are historical facts (see on 
xii. 40). The parable of Dives and Lazarus does not require 
us to believe that Abraham converses with the souls that are 
under punishment in the other world. Our Lord took the 
current beliefs of the day. Where they were morally misleading, 
He corrected them, as in the Sermon on the Mount and in 
ch. xxilii Where they were not so, He sometimes, without 
either affirming or denying their truth, drew His own lessons 
from them. ‘The lessons hold good, whether the story of Noah 
or of Lot’s wife be fact or fable. The lesson from Noah and 
his generation is that those who heed God’s warnings are 
delivered, while those who refuse to do so are left to their fate 
(40, 41). One thing is certain,—that we do not know the time 
of the Coming; and the only thing that can give security is 
unceasing watchfulness (42).+ 

This lesson evidently made a great impression upon those 
who heard it, and it probably was given more than once, and 
not always in the same form: comp. xxv. 13-15; Mk. xiii. 


1 παραλαμβάνεται, ‘is taken into safety,’ or ‘taken home’ (comp. i. 20, 
24); ἀφίεται, as in xxiii. 38, ‘left unprotected.’ 

In ποίᾳ ἡμέρᾳ here and ποίᾳ φυλακῇ (xxiv. 43) the ποίᾳ is belle dis: 
tinguishable from τίνι : comp. ποίαν ὥραν (Rev, ili. 3). 2 


XXIV. 43-51] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 441 


32-37; Lk. xii. 35-40, xvii. 26-35, xxi. 34-36. Our Lord says 
that it is difficult to induce men to attend to these warnings, 
therefore He would be the more likely to repeat them. The 
divergence in wording between the passages shows that there 
were different sources for the Evangelists to draw from. 


XXIV. 48-51. Zwo Jilustrations of the Need for 
Watchfulness. 


There are matters in which it suffices to watch by day; at 
night one may sleep. But the man whose house has been 
broken into and plundered in the night has to abandon that 
doctrine, and so must the Christian: comp. 1 Thes. v. 4; 
2 Pet. iii. 10; Rev. iii. 3, xvi. 15. These passages are further 
evidence of the impression which these warnings made upon 
the first Christians. ‘Blessed is he that watcheth’ (μακάριος ὃ 
yenyopav) is one of the seven Beatitudes in the Revelation 
(xvi. 15), and it remains always true. It is based on the 
Beatitude which is expressed here (46). 

The second illustration is more complete than the first. It 
gives the blessedness of the watchful servant as well as the 
dreadful fate of the one who dares to treat uncertainty about 
the time of the Master’s return as equivalent to certainty that 
He will not return soon. And it is more complete in another 
way. The householder could not be certain that the thief would 
come at all; he had to be on his guard against an attack that 
was only probable. The servant was certain that the Master 
would return; the only doubt was as to the time: and that is 
just the case with the Christian. But the parable evidently has 
a special reference to the Apostles; for the faithful and the evil 
servant are alike placed over the other servants, and their 
responsibility is great. Consequently the reward and the punish- 
ment is in each case overwhelming. ‘This special reference to 
the Apostles had perhaps been suggested by Peter’s question on 
an earlier occasion: ‘Lord, speakest Thou this parable unto 
us, or even unto all?’ (Lk. xii. 41). The evil servant has ‘his 
portion’ (τὸ μέρος, as in Rev. xxi. 8) ‘with the Ayfocrites,’ because 
he intended to act the part of a faithful overseer when the Master 
came home. Lk. says ‘with the unfaithful’ (xii. 46), which is 
almost equivalent. In both passages the offender is put to death, 
but the conclusion here passes beyond the end of the parable to 
the result which death symbolizes.! 


1It is possible that Mt. has substituted ‘hypocrites’ for ‘unfaithful’ 
servants in order to make a point against the Pharisees ; and the concludi 
words, ‘ There shall be the weeping,’ etc., are no doubt an addition made by 


342 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXIV. 45-51 


The very free and conversational style in which the second 
illustration of the necessity for watchfulness is given is remark- 
able. We have first a question: ‘Who is the faithful and wise 
servant?’ And there is no answer. His character is not 
described: only the rich reward which he will win is stated. 
Then the conduct of ‘that evil servant’ is described, although 
he has not previously been mentioned.! But the meaning is in 
no way obscured by this freedom. 

As in other places where the future penalties of sin are 
mentioned, nothing is said here about the duration of the punish- 
ment. We are not told that it is endless, and we are not told 
that there is any way of escape. Contrast the definiteness of the 
ες of the Secrets of Enoch, x. But we are told plainly enough 
what it concerns us to know, that the right way in which to wait 
for the Lord is in the faithful discharge of ordinary duties (οὕτως 
ποιοῦντα). We are to ‘study to be quiet, and to do our own 
business’ (1 Thes. iv. 11}, although it is known that ‘the day of 
the Lord so cometh as a thief in the night’ (v. 2). It is wise to 
cherish the hope that, in spite of past delay, He will now come 
soon (Rev. xxii. 20). If that hope is allowed to perish, it will 
soon be supplanted by the hope that He will zo¢ come soon, or 
even by the wish that He may not come at all. 

Comp. the saying attributed by Justin M. (77y. 47) to “our 
Lord Jesus Christ ’ ”: In whatsoever I may find you, in this will 
I also judge you.’ “Resch, Agrapha, p. 102; Westcott, Lutro- 
duction to the Study of the Gospels, App. C. 


Characteristics in ch. xxiv. : πορεύεσθαι (1), προσέρχεσθαι (1, 3), συντελεία 
(3), τότε (16, 23, 30, 40), ἰδού (23, 25, 26, 27), φαίνεσθαι (27, 30), ἐκεῖ (28, 51), 
συνάγειν (28), οἰκοδεσπότης (43), διορύσσειν (43), φρόνιμος (45), σύνδουλος (49), 
ὑποκριτής (51), ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων (51). Peculiar : τὸ ῥηθέν (15) ; peculiar 
to this chapter: 4 παρουσία τοῦ υἱοῦ τοῦ ἀνθρώπου (27, 37, 39), ψύχειν (12), 
φυγή (20), οἰκετεία (45). 

Justin Μ. (Z7y. 35) quotes a mixture of vv. 11 and 24 as ἃ saying of 
Christ. ᾿Αναστήσονται πολλοὶ ψευδόχριστοι καὶ ψευδαπόσοτολοι καὶ πολλοὺς 
τῶν πιστῶν πλανήσουσιν. In Mt. xvil. 23 and xx. I9 there are differences 
of reading between ἐγερθήσεται and ἀναστήσεται, but there is none here; and 
ψευδαπόστολοι occurs in no Gospel, but only in 2 Cor. xi. 13. Tertullian 
(De Prescr. Her. 4) asks, Qui pseudoprophete sunt, nist falst predicatores ? 
μὲ pseudoapostoli, nést adultert evangelizatores? He, therefore, seems to 
have been familiar with a text which introduced ‘false apostles’ either here 
or vil. 15. See small print near the end of ch. vii. 


him. Wellhausen makes μετὰ τῶν ὑποκριτῶν mean ‘with false Christians,’ 
and μετὰ τ. ἀπίστων, ‘with non-Christians.’ 

ΤῊ Lk. xii. 45 he beats τοὺς παῖδας καὶ τὰς παιδίσκας, for which Mt. has 
simply τοὺς συνδούλους, a word used by no other Evangelist, but frequent in 
the parable of the Unmerciful Servant (xviii. 28-33). With the faithful 
servant’s reward comp. xxv. 21, 23. 


XXV. 1] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 343 


XXV. 1-18. The Paradle of the Ten Virgins. 


Mt. adds here two parables which still further enforce the 
lesson as to the necessity for watchfulness with regard to the 
, Coming of the Son of Man. Both of them take us to the moment 
of the Coming, and show us from that point of view what the 
conduct of Christians ought to be, in preparation for so decisive 
an event. The two epithets given to the good servant in xxiv. 
45 give us the key to what is necessary; there must be both 
fidelity and wisdom. In the Ten Virgins the need of wisdom is 
insisted upon ; in the Talents the need of fidelity. 

The point of view is indicated at the outset; the first word 
gives it. ‘Then’ (τότε) ; 2.6. at the time of the Messiah’s Coming. 
What follows is again expressed with freedom and brevity, but 
in a way that is intelligible. Strictly speaking, the ten virgins 
do not represent the Kingdom of Heaven, but those who are 
desirous of entering it. Or (seeing that the Kingdom is some- 
times described as present and sometimes as future), we may 
say that they represent those who have been admitted to that 
which can be enjoyed in this world, and are on their probation 
with regard to the realization of the Kingdom that is yet to come. 
They represent the great body of expectant Christians, who are 
looking for ‘the life that is life indeed.’ Life, in the full glory 
of the Kingdom, will be secured by those who act as the wise 
virgins did. 

The scene of the parable is laid near the house of the bride- 
groom, who has gone to fetch the bride from the house of her 
parents. She is not mentioned because she is not required for 
the purposes of the parable. As the bridegroom is the Christ, 
the bride would be the Church; but that place is already 
sufficiently occupied by the expectant virgins, who represent the 
Church on earth with its earnest and its careless members. 

The addition of ‘and the bride’ (καὶ τῆς νύμφης) after ‘to meet the 
bridegroom’ (Ὁ XB, Syrr. Latt.) is a not very intelligent insertion made by 
copyists who knew that a bridegroom implied a bride, but did not see that 


the mention of the bride would disturb the parable. See Hastings’ DZ., artt. 
‘Bride’ and ‘ Bridegroom.’ 


The number ten is perhaps significant, to imply completeness. 
According to Jewish notions, ten constituted a congregation. 
These sum up the whole body of Christians, and (as usual) there 
are just two classes. That the classes are equal in numbers 
indicates nothing. Our Lord declined to give any information 
respecting the proportion between the lost and the saved. The 
Christian’s business is to use every effort to secure a place among 
the latter, without counting his chances. See notes on Lk. xiii. 
23, 24. We now see why the waiting Church could not be 


344 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXV. 38-5 


represented by the bride; that would have rendered impossible 
the division into ‘wise’ and ‘foolish,’ which is of the essence of 
the parable. . 

‘They took their lamps,’ to show what they were there for ; 
they were waiting for the bridegroom. The lamps were a pro- 
fession of purpose, justifying their presence at that time and 
place. The lamps, therefore, may be taken to mean the outward 
marks of a Christian life, which indicate a certain outlook, and 
imply that the person who adopts these habits has a definite end 
in view. He “looks for the Resurrection of the dead, and the 
life of the world to come.” 

If this interpretation of the lamps be accepted, then the 
meaning of the oil, about which there has been much controversy, 
follows at once. It is that inward spiritual power which imparts 
light, warmth, and value to the externals of religion. Christian 
rules of life, public worship, fasting, and works of mercy are 
good, but only on condition that they spring from, and are 
nourished by, the Christian spirit. Otherwise they are as useless 
as lamps without oil, a burden to ourselves and misleading to 
others, who naturally believe that so much external profession 
implies what, as a matter of fact, is not there; and who are 
likely to be made to stumble when they discover that it is not 
there. They have trusted to persons who carried lamps, and 
who therefore might be expected to be made to help in times of 
darkness, but who prove to be quite unable to do so, for they 
are utterly in the dark themselves. The inner life of constant 
communion with the Spirit of God is the oil which alone can 
illuminate and render beneficial to ourselves and to others the 
religious activity which we manifest in our daily life. Comp. 
1 Cor, ΧΙ]. 1-3, and see Cosmo G. Lang, Zhoughts on some of 
the Parables of Jesus, pp. 90-92. 

‘While the bridegroom tarried, they all slumbered and slept.’ 
This is true of the wise as well as of the foolish virgins ; and it 
is to be noted that they are not blamed for so doing. ‘This 
seems to be a merciful concession to human weakness. It is 
impossible for creatures such as we are to keep our religious life 
always at high pressure. Certain as we are, and often as we 
may remind ourselves, that the Lord z7// come, and may come 
at any moment, either by our death or in some other way, we 
cannot live hour by hour as it would be possible and natural 
to live if we knew that He would come to-night or to-morrow 
morning. But it zs possible to be constant in securing supplies 
of strength from the Holy Spirit ; and then when the call comes, 
whether by some crisis great or small in our own lives, or by the 
supreme crisis of all, we shall be ready to go out and meet the 
Bridegroom. In countless ways the experiences of life bring us 


XXV. 5-8] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY $45 


the message, ‘The Master is come, and calleth for thee’ (Jn. xi. 
28), and we must cultivate the wisdom which will enable us to 
be always ready to respond. At such times it is misery to dis- 
cover that ‘our lamps are going out.’ 

It is to be noted that there is scarcely any interval between 
the awakening cry, ‘Behold the Bridegroom !’ and the arrival of 
the bridal procession ; it all takes place ‘in a moment, in the 
twinkling of an eye’ (1 Cor. xv. 52). This suddenness has been 
already predicted. It will be like a flash of lightning, or the 
swoop of a vulture, or the on-rush of the Deluge (xxiv. 27, 28, 
37). And ferhaps we are to understand that there is something 
in the coincidence of the lamps going out just as the Bride- 
groom arrived. Mere outward religion is found to have no 
illuminating power, when it is tested by His presence. 

The question has been raised whether the wise virgins were 
not selfish in refusing to help their improvident companions. 
No parable can be made exactly to coincide with the details of 
the truth which it sets forth. It was necessary to show that the 
foolish virgins could not have the consequences of their folly 
averted at the last moment; and this could hardly be done in 
any better way than in representing them as asking and being 
refused. But the refusal of the wise virgins to give of their oil 
indicates, not want of will, but want of power. It is impossible 
for one person to impart to another the spiritual power which 
comes from frequent communion with God’s Spirit. That can 
only come from the man’s own experience of such communion, 
an experience which requires much time. ‘Give us of your oil’ 
is a request which no religious person cam grant; he can only 
teach how the oil is to be obtained. It must be dought by 
personal experience. 


The precise form of the refusal is of interest, both as regards reading and 
grammar. Are we to read Μήποτε οὐ μὴ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν (BC DX Δ Π), 
or Μήποτε οὐκ ἀρκέσῃ ἡμῖν καὶ ὑμῖν (NALZ)? The latter looks like a 
correction made by copyists who felt that in such a case the strong οὐ μή was 
not wanted and was scarcely tolerable. ‘ Perhaps there will not be enough 
for both of us’ does not require, and barely allows, that the negative should 
be made emphatic. ‘ Perhaps there will not by any means be enough’ would 
be somewhat incongruous, for the ‘not by any means’ revokes the ‘ perhaps.’ 
We may conjecture that in this late Greek οὐ μή is sometimes less forcible than 
in classical Greek, and that there would be no real incongruity in Μήποτε 
οὐ μή. Or the precise shade of meaning may be, ‘ We are afraid that there 
is no possibility of there being enough for us both.” See J. H. Moulton, 
Gram. of N.T. Gr. pp. 189, 192. ‘*The omission of the direct negative at 
the beginning of the sentence both in Greek and in Syriac gives a more 
courteous turn to the refusal” (Burkitt, Zvangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. 


p. 76). 


We are not told whether the foolish virgins did succeed in 
buying the oil, and we are not told whether, after suffering great 


346 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXV. 11-20 


loss, they were at last admitted ; and we have no right to assume 
anything, ether way, from this silence. Although, once more, 
we are told nothing as to the duration of the punishment for 
careless misconduct, we are told that it was inflicted, and that 
it was very severe. The closed door, which to those who were 
ready meant security and untold bliss, to the others meant 
banishment and untold gloom. And, even if, when it had done 
its work, the punishment ceased, yet the loss which it had 
involved was irreparable. Is it not the depth of folly to incur 
certain punishment, because it is not certain that the punishment 
will last for ever? It is to be noticed that the mere wish to 
enter the Kingdom, and even the request to be allowed to enter, 
is of as little avail as the exhorting others to enter (vii. 22, 23), 
when the prescribed conditions of obtaining admission have 
been persistently neglected. All through the long delay there 
had been continued indifference about providing what was 
absolutely indispensable. ‘Watch, therefore, for ye know not 
the day nor the hour.’ 


XXV. 14-30. The Parable of the Talents. 


That the servant of Christ must be zz7se (φρόνιμος) is taught 
in the Ten Virgins: the present parable teaches that he must 
also be ‘ faithful’ (πιστός) ; he must be prompt, active, and efficient 
in promoting the interests of his Master.1_ And the parable shows 
that the Master, while being both just and generous, is also 
exacting. Just as in the previous parable the offenders are 
severely punished, not for open contempt or deliberate insult, 
but for foolish neglect, so here the offender is severely punished, 
not for fraudulent appropriation of the Master’s goods or for 
careless losing of them, but for unfaithful neglect to make a 
profit on them for his benefit. He sets before himself a low 
ideal, and allows timidity and slothfulness to extinguish all 
enthusiasm. He has not had much entrusted to him, and he 
does not think it worth while to risk anything, or to take any 
trouble, with a view to increasing it. That he distrusted his own 
competence, or excused himself on the ground of diffidence, is 
not stated or implied in the parable. 

As in the former parable, there are only two classes, the 
faithful servants, who do their best for their Master, and the 
unfaithful servant, who does nothing at all, beyond taking steps 


1 The promptness of the first slave is obscured by the wrong punctuation 
of texts followed by the AV. Between ver. 15 and ver. 16 the εὐθέως belongs 
to πορευθείς, not to ἀπεδήμησεν. There is no point in the Master’s departing 
immediately, There is much point in the slave’s immediately setting to work. 
In Mt. εὐθέως or εὐθύς invariably belongs to what follows. The RV. is right. 


XXV. 20-29] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 347 


to prevent diminution of the amount entrusted to him, which 
steps, however, equally prevented any increase. The change 
from women to men is perhaps intended to show that both sexes 
alike are required to be on the alert ; comp. the converse change 
xxiv. 40, 41. And in yet another way the second parable sup- 
plements the first. That of the Virgins tells nothing about 
working for the Bridegroom during the delay. That of the 
Talents teaches that the time of waiting must be a time of 
service. It also teaches that the time of waiting will be long, 
and it thus might have corrected the view that the Lord would 
come soon; comp. xxiv. ὃ, 14. In both cases there is delay, on 
which the main lesson of the parables turns. ‘The Bridegroom 
tarried,’ and it was ‘after a long time’ that ‘the Lord of those 
servants came.’ Herein lay the testing opportunity. The foolish 
virgins had plenty of time to obtain a supply of oil, and the 
unfaithful servant might at any time have dug up his talent and 
put it to some use; and in both cases there was the good 
example of others to suggest wiser and more dutiful conduct. 

It has often been pointed out that the reward of the faithful 
servants was not rest, but nobler employment: they are to have 
prolonged opportunity of still higher service; comp. xxiv. 47. 
And we are not to suppose that the promotion ends there. In 
the charge to be perfect, as the heavenly Father is perfect, there 
is room for unlimited progress (ν. 48). And part of the punish- 
ment of the slothful servant is that the opportunity for service 
is taken away. That it can ever be won back, is neither asserted 
nor denied. Comp. xiii. 12; Mk. iv. 25, and see Briggs, Zhe 
Messiah of the Gospels, p. 223. 

It would have been easy to subdivide the class of unfaithful 
servants, as that of the faithful is subdivided ; but this would not 
have made the parable more instructive. It was necessary to 
show that there may be degrees of endowment, and that every- 
one is required to make the most of that with which he is 
endowed, because all such advantages are a trust and not an 
absolute gift. But there would have been little gain in showing 
that there may be degrees of failure. The one instance of 
failure suffices for the moral. If the deliberate burying of one 
talent was punished so severely, how heinous it would be to leave 
ten talents unimproved! And again, if the mere keeping unused 
was so grievous a fault, what would it be to squander or destroy ! 
These are inferences which any one can draw for himself. In 
both parables we are taught that what might seem to be an 
excusable offence is not excused. To have enough oil for a 
short delay, but not enough for a long one, might seem to be a 
pardonable error. And to keep a deposit safe, but to fail to 
increase it, might seem to be pardonable also. But the failure 


348 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXV. 31-46 


in each case, whether it be regarded as great or small, is proof 
that there is something radically wrong with the characters of 
those who fail, and the result is the outer darkness. Every one 
has a vocation of some kind, an opportunity of effective service. 
If no attempt is made to render effective service, it will be useless 
to plead that the sphere was very narrow and very humble, or 
that we did nothing for fear of making mistakes. To do nothing 
is often the greatest mistake of all the possibilities. 


*©?Tis better to have fought and lost 
Than never to have fought at all.” 


On the relation of this parable to that of the Pounds (LK. xix. 
11-28) see notes on the latter, especially p. 437. The probability 
is that we have fairly accurate reports of two different parables, 
and not two reports of the same parable, one of which, if not 
both of which, must be very inaccurate. See Wright, Syxopsis, 
§ 18, p. 227. Each parable forms a complement to the other. 
The lesson of the Pounds is, that men endowed with the same 
gifts may make a very different use of them and be very differently 
requited. The lesson of the Talents is, that men with different 
gifts may make an equally good (or bad) use of them, and be 
proportionately requited. 


In comparing the two parables it is instructive to see how the language 
which is characteristic of each Evangelist comes into play. Thus, Mt. thrice 
has προσέρχεσθαι where Lk. has ἔρχεσθαι or παραγίνεσθαι; Mt. twice has 
συνάγειν where Lk. has αἴρειν ; and Mt. has a προσφέρειν which is absent 
from Lk., who has characteristics which are absent from Mt. In both 
parables (Mt. xxv. 27; Lk. xix. 23) we have an ambiguous ἐλθών, which 
may mean either ‘on my coming home’ or ‘on my coming to the bank.’ 
The ἐγώ in each case is for the latter: ‘ You ought to have gone to the bank ; 
then, when 7 came there, I should have got,’ etc. 


XXV. 31-46. The Last Judgment. 


The First Gospel has been called “‘pre-eminently the Gospel 
of judgment,” and certainly this feature is found throughout. 
Among other illustrations of it, we have the separations of the 
wheat from the chaff (iil. 12), of the sincere from the hypocrites 
(vi. 2, 5, 16), the wise builder from the foolish (vii. 24-27), the 
wheat from the tares (xiii. 30), the good from the bad fish 
(xii. 48, 49), the profitable from the unprofitable servants 
(14-30); and now we have the final separation of the sheep 
from the goats (31-46). The principle of separation throughout 
is the relation in which those who are judged stand to Jesus 
Himself. This point here receives further elucidation. 

There is good ground for believing that one of the reasons 
which led our Lord to adopt the title ‘Son of Man’ was that 


ΧΧΥ. 31-46] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 349 


He regarded Himself as, in a unique manner, the Representative 
of Humanity. What He did and suffered was done and 
suffered by the Leader of the human race, and might be 
claimed, in some measure, as the work of mankind. In the 
present passage, which in certain respects stands alone in the 
Gospels, we have the other side of the mysterious unity between 
the Messiah and mankind. What men do, or fail to do, to 
one another, they do, or fail to do, to Christ. ‘Here, as in 
the Book of Enoch, the Son of Man is seated on His throne 
as Judge; and He accepts some and rejects others, of those 
who are brought before Him, on the express ground that actions 
done, or not done, to their fellow-men, had been done, or not 
done, to Him.” ‘The writer adds in a note: “I am aware that 
doubt is thrown on this passage by some critics. But the doubt 
is most wanton. Where is the second brain that could have 
invented anything so original and so sublime as vv. 35-40, 
42-5?” (Sanday, Life of Christ in Recent Research, p. 128). 

Even if it were proved that the Testaments of the XII. 
Patriarchs must be dated B.c. 109, and that the passage in 
Joseph i. 5, 6, with wording parallel to parts of the addresses 
in Mt. xxv. 35-43, had not been changed under the influence 
of Mt., yet this would not detract from the originality of this 
passage. The parallels are concerned with the sufferings of 
Joseph in Egypt, not with the Last Judgment. ‘I was beset 
with hunger, and the Lord Himself nourished me; I was alone, 
and God comforted me; I was in sickness, and the Lord 
visited me; I was in prison, and my God showed favour to 
me.” The thought throughout is very different from the thought 
in Mt. xxv. Comp. Mt. x. 40, where the Messiah is identified, 
on the one side with God, and on the other with His disciples. 

The Judgment-scene which is brought before us here is 
very suitably introduced by the parable of the Talents; but 
it is possible that the order is due to the arrangement of the 
Evangelist rather than to actual chronology. We have had 
several parables of Judgment which may be regarded as leading 
up to the final crisis which is here revealed. There is the 
judgment of the Unmerciful Servant (xviii. 23-34), of the 
Labourers in the Vineyard (xx. 1-16), of the Wicked Husband- 
men (xxi. 33-41), of the Guest without a Wedding-garment 
(xxii. 1-14), of the Faithful and Unfaithful Servants (xxiv. 
45-51), and of the Wise and Foolish Virgins (xxv. 1-12). But 
what is intimated in parabolic language there is revealed with 
singular plainness and completeness here. 

The full sweep of the revelation is at once indicated. The 
Son of Man is seated on the throne of His glory: ‘All the 
Angels’ are present, and ‘all the nations’ are gathered before 


350 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XXV. 34-41 


Him. Comp. ‘all the tribes of the earth’ (xxiv. 30), and the 
equally significant mention of Angels elsewhere (xiii. 49, xvi. 27, 
xxiv. 36). The fact that the Son of Man is come is evidence 
that the Gospel has been ‘preached in the whole world for a 
testimony to all the nations’ (xxiv. 14): so that here there is 
no distinction made between those who have never heard of 
the Messiah and those who have heard and rejected Him. 
All have had the opportunity of hearing. That just allowance 
will be made to those who died before the Birth of the Messiah 
has been already intimated more than once (x. 15, xi. 21-24, 
ΧΙ. 41, 42); but even those who have never heard of Him 
have had the means of knowing their duty to their fellow-men, 
which is here the crucial test. No question is asked that 
would be applicable only to professed Christians. Nothing is 
said about repentance or faith in Christ ; but only about conduct 
towards other men. It is that which shows the Christlike life. 
‘By this shall all men know that ye are My disciples, if ye have 
love one to another’ (Jn. xiii. 35). That is the true ‘Note’ of 
a soul that is by nature Christian. It is the one indispensable 
virtue (1 Cor. xiii.). It is the perfection of the Divine Nature 
(1 Jn. iv. 8, 16), and it is the perfection in which we are 
specially bound to imitate the Divine (Mt. v. 48). 

The reasons which led to the comparison of the good and 
the bad to sheep and goats seem to be two: colour and habits. 
Sheep are commonly white and inoffensive ; goats are commonly 
black (Cant. iv. 1, vi. 5) and very mischievous. ‘This constant 
browsing of goats (on the tender twigs and the foliage of the 
thymes and dwarf shrubs) is one of the causes which has pre- 
vented the restoration of the forests even in the most deserted 
parts of the Holy Land. Indeed they have extirpated many 
species of trees which once covered the hills. Though the 
goats mingle with the sheep, there is no disposition on either 
side for more intimate acquaintance. When folded together 
at night, they may always be seen gathered in distinct groups; 
and round the wells they appear instinctively to classify them- 
selves apart” (Tristram, /Vatural History of the Bible, pp. 89, 
go). Comp. ‘I judge between cattle and cattle’ (Ezek. xxxiv. 
17, 22), where the rams are classed with the he-goats as injurious 
to the weaker sheep. In folk-lore goats are of bad repute. 

There is nothing very surprising in the change from ‘the 
Son of Man’ (31) to ‘the King’ (34). The Son of Man comes 
‘in His glory,’ and ‘sits on His throne,’ and ‘all the nations 

ee summoned before Him.’ This is regal state, and would 
eee the change to ‘the King’ natural enough, even if we 
had not been told that this was ‘the Son of Man coming in 
| His Kingdom’ (xvi. 28). This King not only comes in His 


XXV. 34-41] LAST WORK IN THE HOLY CITY 351 


Kingdom, but has kingdoms to bestow, which have been 
waiting throughout all time for their proper sovereigns. ‘And 
the kingdom and the dominion, and the greatness of the 
kingdoms under the whole heaven, shall be given to the people 
of the saints of the Most High’ (Dan. vii. 27). Comp. ‘This 
place (the third heaven), O Enoch, is prepared for the righteous 
who . . . give bread to the hungry, and clothe the naked, and 
raise the fallen, and assist the orphans who are oppressed... . 
For them this place is prepared as an eternal inheritance” 
(Book of the Secrets of Enoch, ix.); also the Divine charge to 
Israel, 2 Esdr. ii. 20. The Talmud has many sayings which 
exhort to benevolence. ‘The world stands on three pillars: 
law, worship, and charity.” “Charity is greater than all.” 
“Who gives charity in secret is greater than Moses.” “A 
beneficent soul will be abundantly gratified.”! See also the 
Korn, ch. Ixxvi. ; 

The truth of Is. lv. 8, 9 is manifested throughout this scene: 
‘For My thoughts are not your thoughts, neither are your ways 
My ways, saith the Lord. For as the heavens are higher than 
the earth, so are My ways higher than your ways, and My 
thoughts than your thoughts.’ Both the good and the bad find 
that the Divine estimate of their conduct is very different from 
their own, and they are amazed at the point of view which is 
put before them. The good did not regard their benevolence 
as bestowed upon the brethren of the Messiah (40), still less as 
bestowed upon the Messiah Himself; nor did the bad suppose 
that they had ever shown neglect or hardheartedness to the 
Messiah.2 Christ’s claiming the poor and needy as His brethren 
is quite in keeping with His character as the Son of Man and 
the Son of God. God is His Father and their Father. 

Close as is the correspondence between the address to those 
on the right and that to those on the left, there are two remark- 
able changes in the opening words to the latter. The Kingdom, 
the good are told, was prepared ‘from the foundation of the 
world,’ and it was prepared expressly for them (ἡτοιμασμένην 
ὑμῖν) ; but it is not said that the eternal fire was prepared ‘from 
the foundation of the world’; and it is not said that it was 
prepared for these sinners, but ‘for the devil and his angels.’ 
Comp. Rev. xx. 10 and Swete’s note, ad /oc. It is often pointed 


1The placing of the benevolent souls on the right hand, ἐκ δεξιῶν 
αὐτοῦ, is a new feature in Biblical symbolism. An early example of it is 
found in the Testaments: ‘‘Then shall ye see Enoch, and Abraham, and 
Isaac, and Jacob, rising on the right hand in gladness” (Benjamin x. 4). 
With the change from the collective ἔθνη to the individual αὐτούς comp. 
Acts xxvi. 17. See Stanton, p. 341. 

2 For συνάγειν in the sense of receiving an individual hospitably comp. 
Judg. xix. 18. 


352 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW. [XXVI. 1 


out that ‘eternal’ (αἰώνιος) in ‘eternal punishment’ must have 
the same meaning as in ‘eternal life! No doubt, but that 
does not give us the right to say that ‘eternal’ in both cases 
means ‘endless.’ The meaning of ‘eternal’ may possibly have 
no reference to duration of time. Nor is the expression ‘eternal 
punishment’ synonymous with ‘eternal fazz,’ still less with 
‘unending pain,’ and we are not justified in treating these expres- 
sions as equivalent. ‘Eternal punishment’ may mean ‘eternal 
loss’ οὐ ‘irreparable loss’; but there is no legitimate inference 
from ‘irreparable loss’ to ‘everlasting suffering.’ Comp. Dan. 
xii. 2, perhaps the earliest mention of ‘eternal life’ for the 
righteous.” 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xxv.: τότε (1, 7, 31, 34, 41, 44, 45), 
φρόνιμος (2, 8, 9), ἰδού (6), πορεύεσθαι (9, 16, 41), γάμοι Ξ-- γάμος (10), ὕστερον 
(11), προσέρχεσθαι (20, 22, 24), συνάγειν (26, 32, 35, 37, 43); ὁ βρυγμὸς τῶν 
ὀδόντων (30), δεῦτε (34). Peculiar: 4 βασιλεία τῶν οὐρανῶν (1), συναίρειν 
(19), ἐξώτερος (30), ἐκεῖ (30), τάλαντον (15-28), τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον (41 and 
xviii. 8 only) ; peculiar to this chapter: τραπεζείτης (27), ἐρίφιον (33), κόλασις 
αἰώνιος (46). 

In the rendering of the last expression we have another instance of the 
caprice of the AV. ‘These shall go into ever/asting (αἰώνιον) punishment, 
but the righteous into life e¢erma/ (αἰώνιον) ; which leads the English reader 
to suppose that, whether or no the ‘life’ lasts for ever, the ‘punishment’ 
certainly does. This impression will be deepened when he notices that, both 
in xviii. 8 and xxv. 41, τὸ πῦρ τὸ αἰώνιον is rendered ‘ everlasting fire,’ and 
that in xix. 16 fw) αἰώνιος is again rendered ‘eternal life.’ In Mk. x. 17, 
which is parallel, (wy αἰώνιος is rendered ‘ eternal life.’ 

Again, in ver. 32 we find ‘He shall separate (ἀφοριεῖ) them one from 
another, as a shepherd dzuvideth (ἀφορίζει) his sheep from the goats.’ 

With ver. 45 comp. P2rge Aboth, ii. 13; ‘‘ He that borrows from man is 
the same as if he borrowed from God,” and therefore ‘‘ he that borroweth and 
repayeth not ” is a grievous sinner. See Montefiore, p. 754. 


XXVI. 1-XXVIII. 20. THE PASSION, DEATH, AND 
RESURRECTION OF THE MESSIAH. 


This is the seventh and last section of the Gospel. The 
main division of the Gospel in two parts (iv. 12-xili. 52, xiv. 1— 
XVili. 35) is preceded by two subordinate sections (i. I-ii. 23, 
iii. I-Iv. 11), and followed by two subordinate sections (xix. 
I-XX. 34, xxi. I-xxv. 46). This seventh section forms the 
natural conclusion to all. Everything, from the Birth onwards, 
has led up to this climax. It opens with three paragraphs 
(1-5, 6-13, 14-16) which are connected together by the thought 


1 The expression ‘eternal punishment’ (κόλασις αἰώνιος) occurs more than 
once in the Testaments: “ezden v. 5; Gad vil. 5; but is not found in the 
O.T. For the judgment of the Angels comp. the Ascension of Isaiah, i. 5, 
iv. 8, x. 12. 

* See the instances collected in Dalman, Words, pp. 156 ff. 


XXVI.1-5] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION θὰ 


of the action of the traitor, in whom Mt. takes a special interest. 
These paragraphs mark different stages in the process of 
betrayal. 

In the first of them Mt. again joins Mk., whose narrative he 
left at xxiv. 42=Mk. xiii. 35, and the first two verses are the 
Evangelist’s method of returning to the narrative of Mk. We 
have already had the formula, ‘And it came to pass when Jesus 
finished,’ used several times for connecting a long discourse 
with what follows (vii. 28, xi. 1, xiii. 53, xix. 1). Here Mt. 
inserts ‘all’ between ‘finished’ and ‘these words,’ to intimate 
that no more discourses of great length are to follow; see on 
vil. 28, ἢ: 110. 


XXVI. 1-5. The Approach of the Passover and the Malice 
‘ of the Hierarchy. 


‘Ye know that after two days the Passover cometh.’ Mt. 
omits the mention of ‘the Unleavened Bread’ (τὰ ᾿Αζυμα), which, 
although originally distinct from the Passover, had come to be 
synonymous with it (Lk. xxii. 1; see notes there), and therefore 
did not need separate mention. The meaning of ‘after two days’ 
is uncertain. If ‘after three days’ means ‘on the third day,’ 
‘after two days’ ought to mean ‘on the morrow,’ but it is a 
strange expression to substitute for so simple and common 
a phrase as ‘on the morrow.’ Possibly the Aramaic original was 
less definite: ‘after some days.’ By adding ‘and the Son of 
Man is being delivered up to be crucified’ Mt. shows how 
entirely aware the Messiah was of all that His enemies were 
doing, and of how it will end; comp. xx. 19. ‘Is betrayed to 
be crucified’ (AV.) ties the meaning of παραδίδοται to the act of 
the traitor; but it may refer to Christ’s ‘being delivered up by 
the determinate counsel and foreknowledge of God’ (Acts 
ii. 23); see On xvil. 22 and xx. 18, 19. In mentioning among 
the enemies of the Messiah ‘the elders of the people’ (xxi. 23, 
Xxvil. 3, 47), Mt. perhaps wishes to intimate that the hostile 
hierarchy consisted largely of vepresentatives of the people; they 
were popular leaders and teachers. He alone tells us that the 
conspirators met at the house of Caiaphas,! who had already 
advised putting Jesus to death (Jn. xi. 50); and he follows Mk. 
in saying that they agreed to do it by craft (δόλῳ); He was to 
be quietly put out of the way. This meant waiting till the 
Galilean pilgrims, who had come up for the Passover, and who 
were enthusiastic on His behalf, had gone home again. If He 
were arrested publicly, they would make a tumult (θόρυβος), a 


? Mk. does not mention the high priest by name, and Lk. does so only in 
a date (iii. 2). Jn. gives the name five times. 


23 


354 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 5-7 


word specially used of excited multitudes (xxvii. 24; Acts xx. 1, 
xxi. 34). It was the unexpected offer of Judas which enabled 
them to abandon this unwelcome postponement, and proceed 
at once. Mt. perhaps means us to understand that it was at the 
very time (τότε) when this plot was being made, that Jesus pre- 
dicted that He would be delivered up to be crucified at the 
Passover. His foes were intending to wait till after the Feast; 
but He knew what would happen through the agency of the 
traitor, whose work is the thread that connects these three 
paragraphs, 1-16.1 


XXVI. 6-16. Zhe Anointing at Bethany and its Sequel. 


It would have been natural to mention the offer of the 
traitor immediately after the decision of the Sanhedrin (4, 5); 
but Mt. first tells of the incident in the house of Simon the 
leper, and then records the fact that Judas went to the hierarchy 
with his proposal. Evidently we are to suppose that the pro- 
posal was a consequence (τότε πορευθείς) of that incident. The 
motives of Judas were doubtless mixed, but the Gospels clearly 
indicate that one of them was avarice. By the ‘waste’ of the 
ointment he had lost the care of more than 300 denarii (Mk. 
xiv, 5; Jn. xii. 5, 6), and he desired compensation. Thirty 
shekels would be about 120 denarit, and of the 300 denarii Judas 
would hardly have been able to steal more than 120. Whatever 
other motives he may have had for his treachery, disappoinied 
avarice would seem to have been one of them. Our Lord’s 
defence of Mary’s extravagance was exasperating and might make 
Judas ready to make money by treachery, and by treachery that 
would wreak vengeance on Him. 

It is clear from various passages (xxi. 17; Mk. xi. 11, 19, 27) 
that during these last days our Lord generally left the city in the 
evening and spent the night at Bethany. Therefore His being in 
a house at Bethany (6) is what we should expect. The fact that 
the owner of the house was named Simon, and that in it a woman 
poured ointment on our Lord from an alabaster box, are the 
only reasons for identifying this story with that in Lk. vii. 36-50. 
But Simon was one of the commonest of names, for there are at 
least ten in the N.T. and about twenty in Josephus; so that 
identity of name proves very little, and the addition of ‘the 
leper’ here points to a different person.2 An ‘alabaster’ may 


1 Mt. is alone, not only in recording the prediction (2), but also in stating 
that there was a formal meeting of the Sanhedrin. Mk. and Lk. say merely 
that the hierarchy were seeking (ἐζήτουν) how to destroy Him. 

2 «The Leper’ does not necessarily mean that he was a leper at the time. 
Matthew was called ὁ τελώνης after he had ceased to bea toll-collector. For 
unguents in alabasters comp. Herod. iii. 20, Pliny says that wnguenta optime 


XXVI. 8-14] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 355 


have been as common a receptacle for ointment as Simon was 
common among names. ‘The great objection, however, to 
identifying the two incidents is the character of the women. 
John tells us that this woman was Mary, the sister of Martha 
and Lazarus (xii. 1-3), and it is difficult to believe that she was 
the ‘sinner’ mentioned by Lk. On the other hand there is no 
difficulty in believing that there were two anointings ; indeed the 
first might suggest a second. The identification involves an 
imputation on Mary’s previous life which “we are not warranted 
in casting, on a mere surmise, and without any evidence to 
support it” (Salmon, Auman Element, p. 483). See notes on 
Lk. vii. 30, p. 209. It is certainly remarkable that, in spite of 
the promise that the woman’s act should be spoken of wherever 
the Gospel was preached, her name is not mentioned by either 
Mt. or Mk. The reason may be that, when they wrote, she was 
still alive, and would not desire to have her name published. 
When Lk. (x. 38-42) and John wrote, she may have been dead. 
It is perhaps for a similar reason that Jn. alone mentions that it 
was Peter who cut off the ear of Malchus. No other Gospel gives 
the names. 

It is possible that a like feeling of caution or reserve caused 
Mt. and Mk. to withhold the name of him who took the lead in 
censuring Mary for her extravagance. The statements become 
more definite as the incident becomes more remote. Mk. says 
that ‘there were some who had indignation’ at her act. Mt. 
says that these were ‘disciples.’ Jn. says that it was Judas, and 
that it was the loss of possible gain that made him find fault. 
“ΤῸ what purpose was this waste?’! It is likely enough that 
some of the disciples sympathized with this “plausible cuz dono 
of a shortsighted utilitarianism” (Swete), and showed their 
sympathy by an approving murmur. Mt. omits the estimate of 
‘more than 300 denarii, as he omitted the ‘about 2000’ (viii. 
32), and ‘200 denarii’ (xiv. 17), and ‘by hundreds and by 
fifties’ (xiv. 19). Perhaps such details seemed to him to be 
unedifying, or at any rate unnecessary. The remarkable rebuke 
to the plea for the poor, ‘For ye have the poor always with you, 
but Me ye have not always,’ is in all three Gospels. Its origin- 
ality stamps it as authentic. Considering the teaching of Christ 
and of the O.T. respecting the poor, we may be sure that He 
alone would have used this argument; no one would have 
servantur in alabastris. Mt. omits the puzzling πιστική. Both he and Mk. 
say that our Lord’s head was anointed, perhaps influenced by Ps. xxiii. 5. 
Jn. says that Mary anointed His feet, and wiped them with her hair. 

1“ Waste’ is hardly strong enough; ‘ destruction’ is nearer the meaning. 
The precious fluid was utterly thrown away and lost. Elsewhere ἀπῶλεια 
commonly means ‘ perdition ’ in an intransitive sense (vii. 13; Jn. xvii. 12 ; 
Acts viii. 20; Rom, ix. 22, etc.), 


356 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 8. MATTHEW [XXVI. 14-17 


invented it for him. Comp. Deut. xv. 11 (which is not easily 
harmonized with xv. 4), and also “God allows the poor to be 
with us for ever, that the opportunities of doing good may never 
fail” (Talmud). Mt. omits, as superfluous : ‘ whensoever ye will ye 
can [always] do them good.’ The promise that Mary’s act shall 
never be forgotten wherever the Gospel is preached is in Mt. and 
Mk., who do not give her name, but not in Jn., who does give it. 

The Evangelist’s favourite ‘Then’ (τότε) is meant to imply 
that the anointing led directly to the betrayal. Except in the 
list of the Apostles (x. 4), Judas has not been previously 
mentioned in the Synoptic narrative. It is not likely that the 
Sanhedrin had ventured to offer a reward to whoever would get 
Jesus out of the way; but their hostility to Him was notorious, 
and perhaps the intention to have Him arrested was somewhat 
widely known. Mt. alone states the amount, ‘thirty pieces of 
silver,’ and that it was paid at once! Mk. says that they 
‘promised’ (ἐπηγγείλαντο) and Lk. that they ‘covenanted’ 
(συνέθεντο) ‘to give him money.’ Mt. states the amount in 
anticipation of xxvil. 3-10, where Zech. xi. 12, 13 is compared ;_ 
and, unless Judas had already been paid, he could not have 
thrown the money back. Apparently the earliest tradition 
mentioned neither the amount, nor the time of payment. ‘These 
divergencies about details need not trouble us. Having secured 
either the money ora promise, Judas went back, like Gehazi 
after securing the money-bags of Naaman, and ‘stood before his 
Master’ (2 Kings v. 25). Had he not thought that, while he 
sought opportunity? to deliver Him up, Jesus knew all that was 
passing in his mind? He must have noticed that Jesus did 
seem to read men’s thoughts. 


XXVI. 17-19. The Preparations for the Passover. 


Mt.’s narrative is only half as long as those of Mk. and Lk., 
which are very similar. But there is hardly anything in Mt. 
which could not be derived from Mk. For ‘where is My guest- 
chamber?’ Mt. has ‘My time is at hand’; but almost all the 
other differences are those of omission. Mt. says nothing about 
the man with the pitcher of water. He again (ver. 9) omits a 
definite number, and does not tell us that wo disciples were sent 
(Mk. xiv. 13), still less that they were Peter and John (Lk. xxii. 
8). Lk. knows so much about Peter and John after the 


1 In the apocryphal Narrative of Joseph of Arimathza (ii.) it is stated that 
Judas received thirty pieces of go/d. This change seems to be made because 
the coins are identified with those brought by the Magi, which were lo t 
during the flight into Egypt, found by a herdsman and offered in the Temple. 

* The word implies a ‘good opportunity’ (εὐκαιρία) ; comp. Lk. xxii. 6, 
On the character of Judas see Fairbairn, Axfosttor, Ist series, xii. pp. 47-70. 


XXVI.17-19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 357 


Ascension (Acts iii. 1, iv. 13, viii. 14), that he may have 
learned this fact also from the same source. The chronological 
difficulties connected with the narratives of the Last Supper 
have been often discussed, and need not be re-discussed here.} 
It is best to hold fast to the very clear and thoroughly consistent 
statements in the Fourth Gospel, and correct the confused and 
inconsistent Synoptic narratives by them. The confusion in the 
latter originated in Mk., who has been followed by Mt. and Lk. 
The source of error probably lies in the date, ‘On the first day 
of Unleavened Bread’ (Lk. omits ‘ first’), which cannot be right, 
and which leads to further confusion. It perhaps represents 
an Aramaic phrase meaning ‘ Before the Feast of Unleavened 
Bread,’ which Mk. has misunderstood. The Passover coincided 
with the Sabbath, which began on the Friday evening. Our 
Lord, knowing that He would be unable to celebrate it at the 
proper time, had a representative supper on the Thursday 
evening. When the disciples asked, ‘Where wilt Thou that we 
make ready for Thee to eat the Passover?’ they probably did 
not know of Christ’s intention to anticipate the celebration. 
Christ kept both place and time secret, to avoid premature 
arrest. Judas probably did not know either till Christ took him 
and the Eleven to the upper room on Thursday afternoon, and 
then Judas could do nothing till our Lord released him for his 
evil work. Apparently Christ had an understanding with the 
owner of the upper room, who seems to have been in some 
sense a disciple. ‘The Master saith’ is in all three. Like ‘The 
Lord hath need of them’ (xxi. 3), it manifestly implies that the 
recipient of the message will recognize the validity of the claim. 
Moreover, here, ‘My time is at hand’ would be meaningless to 
a stranger. The message in that case would have run, ‘The 
Passover is athand.’ Mt. characteristically omits, ‘Where is My 
guest-chamber?’ He does not like questions which seem to 
imply that our Lord was ignorant.? . 
The question has been raised whether Peter and John pre- 
pared the lamb, or whether this was left to the master of the 
house. Almost certainly, there was no lamb. The killing of 
this ought to be done in the Temple on Friday afternoon in the 
presence of the whole company. ‘Two disciples would not 
suffice for this (Exod. xii. 4), and it could not be done two days 
before the Passover. Moreover, Peter and John were probably 
not aware that the supper was to take place on the Thursday, 
Bs the excellent notes in Allen, pp. 269-274; also Wright, Synopsis, 
. 138. 
᾿ ? Thus, he omits, ‘ What is thy name?’ (viii. 29), ‘Who touched My 
clothes δ᾽ (ix. 21), ‘How many loaves have ye?’ (xiv. 16), ‘ What question 
ye with them ?” (xvii. 14), etc. Note also how here he cuts out superfluous 
words in vv. 17 and 19. 


358 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 19 


but believed that they were getting the room ready for the 
Friday. ‘They made ready the Passover’ means that they 
prepared a room for a Paschal meal.! The site of this room 
seems to be one of the best ascertained facts in the topography 
of Jerusalem, and there is perhaps hardly any other site about 
which a Christian pilgrim would more desire to be assured. Dr. 
Sanday believes “that of all the most sacred sites it is the one 
that has the strongest evidence in its favour” (Sacred Sites of the 
Gospels, p. 77). He believes that it is identical with the ‘upper 
chamber’ of Acts i. 13 (although we have ἀνάγαιον in the Gospels 
and ὑπερῷον in Acts); and inclines to think that the room was in 
‘the house of Mary, the mother of Mark’ (Acts xii. 12). See 
Edersheim, Zife and Times, ii. p. 485. In that case, ‘the good- 
man of the house’ would be the husband of Mary and the 
father of Mark. But, if so, why is the house called Mary’s, and 
why is her name given and not his?? If, however, this difficulty 
be set aside, and an interesting conjecture, sorely lacking in 
evidence, be accepted, we may easily accept the further con- 
jecture that the young man with the linen cloth (Mk. xiv. 51) 
was the son of ‘the goodman’ who lent the upper room. ‘The 
young man was probably Mark the Evangelist: if not, why does 
Mk., and Mk. alone, mention him? ‘This reasonable hypo- 
thesis certainly makes an attractive combination with the other 
guesses. To sum up. The ‘upper room’ of the Gospels is 
probably the ‘upper chamber’ of Acts. The ‘young man’ of 
Mk. is probably the John Mark of Acts. It is zot zmpossible that 
the ‘upper room’ or ‘upper chamber’ was in the house of Mary 
the mother of John Mark; in which case the owner of it would 
be her husband and his father. But see Swete on Mk. xiv. 14. 

Mt. omits the ‘man bearing a pitcher of water,’ the meeting 
with whom may have been arranged between our Lord and the 
owner. The carrying of the pitcher, which was work usually 
done by women, may have been a sign of recognition (Burton 
and Mathews, p. 244). Our Lord seems to have taken care 
that Judas should not betray Him before His hour was come ; 
and this could be done by ordinary prudence. 


XXVI. 20-29. Zhe Paschal Supper. 


This was the last Paschal meal that our Lord was to share 
with the Apostles, and possibly it was the last meal of any kind 


1 That our Lord makes no comparison between Himself and the Paschal 
lamb, or between His blood and that of the lamb, is strong evidence that there 
was no lamb. 

2Tt is possible that, when Mt. wrote, it was thought inexpedient to 
mention the name of ‘such a man’ (τὸν δεῖνα), and that when Acts was 
written he was dead, 


XXVI. 20-24] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 359 


that He shared with them. His great desire to partake of it 
with them, as expressed in the independent narrative of Lk., is 
in harmony with all the circumstances and with what we know 
of Him. The ways in which Mt. abbreviates Mk. are character- 
istic; but he makes one considerable addition by inserting ver. 
25, and in ver. 28 he adds ‘unto remission of sins.’ The 
abbreviation in ver. 21 involves real loss. ‘One of you shall 
betray Me, even he that eateth with Me’ (Mk.). The last six 
words are implied in ‘one of you,’ and may seem to be super- 
fluous ; but they are impressive as showing the enormity of the 
treachery. To Orientals, eating bread with a man bars one 
from hostile acts against him. But none of the Apostles 
expresses doubt as to the truth of the dreadful announcement, 
and none appears to have suspected Judas. Each looks into his 
own heart, and each of the Eleven hopes that he may acquit 
himself: ‘Surely it is not I, Lord?’+ Our Lord’s answer can 
hardly have been a sign by which all could recognize the traitor, 
for when our Lord dismissed him they were mistaken as to the 
errand on which he was sent. ‘He that dipped his hand with 
Me in the dish’ is a more emphatic enlargement of ‘He that 
eateth with Me.’ There was probably only one dish, into which 
all the company dipped, and therefore all had dipped in the 
dish with Christ.2. But it is possible that our Lord’s hand had 
touched that of Judas in the act of dipping, and that this more 
definite expression would be understood by Judas, though not by 
the other Apostles ; and it is also Possible that the Eleven did 
not understand the full meaning of ‘ deliver Me up.’ 

‘The Son of Man goeth’ (24) probably means ‘goeth His way 
to death’ (comp. Jn. vii. 33, Viil. 14, 21, xill. 3, 33, xiv. 4), and 
with this may be combined the further thought of going through 
death to the glory of the Father. Indeed, the word sometimes 
has the sense of going dack or going home (v. 24, Viil. 4, 13, ix. 6, 
ΧΙ. 44, Xix. 21, xx. 14), and that idea may well be included here. 
See Abbott, Johannine Vocabulary, pp. 144, 145. ‘Just as it 
stands written respecting Him’ (καθὼς γέγραπται περὶ αὐτοῦ) means 
that the prophecies and types of the O.T. have revealed God’s 
counsels respecting Him,—counsels which the Son of Man loves 
to fulfil. But these counsels did not necessitate the sin of Judas ; 
they would have been fulfilled, if he had remained faithful. Of 
his own free will he helped to carry them out in a particular 
manner, and for this he is responsible and stands justly con- 


1 This is the moment seized upon by Leonardo da Vinci in the great fresco 
at Milan. The disciples are amazed at the fatal announcement; but each 
regards himself as a possible traitor rather than doubt the Lord’s word. 

2In Mk. xiv. 20 some of the best texts (B C) insert ‘one’ before ‘ dish’: 
εἰς τὸ ἐν τρύβλιον. See DCG., artt. ‘ Bread’ and ‘ Dish,’ 


360 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 24 


demned. So far from being compelled to act as he did, Judas is 
allowed abundant opportunities of repentance. ‘To the last Christ 
tries to win him back; and this intimation that his guilt is 
enormous, that our Lord knows all, and yet will not denounce 
him to the others, is the final attempt to bring him to repentance. 
And there seems to be more of sorrow than of anger in the con- 
sciousness that He has failed. As in the Woes in xxiil., we 
should perhaps translate: ‘4/as for that man through whom the 
Son of Man is being delivered up.’ There is here no malediction, 
such as we find in the cursing Psalms. ‘ Zhrvough whom’ is in 
all three (dv οὗ not ὑφ᾽ ob): Judas is the instrument, in one sense 
of the Divine decree that the Messiah must suffer, in another of 
Satan’s desire that he should commit this sin (Jn. xiii. 2, 27; 
Lk. xxii. 3). 

‘Good were it for him, if that man had not been born.’! It is 
grammatically possible to make ‘for him’ (αὐτῷ) refer to ‘the 
Son of Man.’ It would have been a happy thing for Jesus, if 
there had been no Judas. But the context is wholly against this 
interpretation. Our Lord is pointing out the miserable condition 
of the traitor, not His own sufferings. ‘The common rendering, 
‘Good were it for that man, if he had not been born,’ gives 
the right meaning. Life to a human being is a Divine gift; but 
it is possible to abuse this blessing to such an extent that it is 
turned into a curse. Comp. xviil. 6, where we have a similar, 
but less severe saying; and also the Book of Enoch, xxxviil. 2: 
“When the Righteous One shall appear . . . where then will be 
the dwelling of the sinners, and where the resting place of those 
who have denied the Lord of Spirits? It had been good for 
them, if they had not been born.” Clement of Rome combines 
xviii. 6 with this saying (Cov. xlvi.) ; Clement of Alexandria copies 
this combination (Strom. 111. 18) ; and in the Clementine Homilies 
we have as a saying of “‘the Prophet of the truth,” z.e. of Christ: 
“Good things must come, and blessed is he through whom they 
come; and in like manner it is necessary that bad things come, 
but alas for him through whom they come” (xii. 29). In no 
case is ‘it were good for him’ understood as applying to our 
Lord. See Hastings’ DB., art. ‘Judas Iscariot,’ § 3. 

We do not know where Mt. found the detail respecting the 
appeal of Judas (25). It may be an inference from the statement 
that the Apostles began to say, ‘Surely it isnot I?’ Ifall did so, 
then Judas must have done so in his turn, and our Lord would 
not say ‘No.’ But the verse gives the impression of being 
historical. It is probable that Judas asked with the rest; his 


1 The inversion, ‘for him, if that man,’ instead of ‘for that man, if he’ 
is Semitic; and ‘it were better for him’ is a well-known Rabbinic expression 
(Edersheim, Zzfe and Times, ii. p. 120). Comp. Hermas, V7s. ἵν. 2. 


XXVI. 25, 26] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 561 


not doing so would have aroused suspicion, and he would be 
anxious to find out how much our Lord knew. Ina few hours 
all would know his guilt, so that he did not risk much by asking 
along with the others. Christ had shown an unwillingness to 
expose him, and perhaps would adhere to this. Moreover, Judas 
may have been reclining so close to Christ that he could hope to 
get a reply without the Eleven hearing it. ‘The meaning of our 
Lord’s reply is not quite certain. It was probably an indirect 
affirmation: ‘ Zhou hast said’ (σὺ εἶπας) what is the case.) In 
ver. 64, Mt. evidently uses it as an affirmation, for it is equivalent 
to ‘lam’ (ἐγώ εἰμι, Mk. xiv. 62). But there is not much evidence 
to show that ‘Thou hast said’ or ‘Thou sayest’ (xxvii. 11 = Mk. 
xv. 2= Lk. xxiii. 3 =Jn. xviii. 37) was a common form of affirma- 
tion either in Greek or in Hebrew (Dalman, Words, p. 309). 
Possibly our Lord used a vague formula, which Judas would 
understand as no contradiction of what he had said, and which 
would not amount to an exposure, if it were overheard. Some, 
however, think that it was spoken aloud, and with the intention 
of letting the Eleven know who the traitor was. In that case we 
may believe that our Lord was freeing the Eleven from distressing 
doubts about themselves. But this hypothesis can hardly be 
reconciled with Jn. xiii. 28, 29. Mt. gives no intimation of the 
moment when Judas left the company. Not till ver. 47 does one 
see that he must have been away some time; and it will always 
remain doubtful whether he partook of the Eucharist or not. 
Early and medizval writers commonly take the view that he did, 
moderns that he did not. See Schanz on Lk. xxii. 21-23, pp. 
509, 510; Girodon on the same, pp. 490, 491. 

It is evident from the accounts of the Institution of the 
Eucharist which have come down to us that it took place in 
the evening (20) and in the middle of the meal. It was ‘as they 
were eating’ (26) that Jesus took a loaf (probably one of the 
cakes or biscuits prepared for the Passover), and blessed and 
brake and gave it to the disciples. Both Mt. and Mk. 
have ‘blessed’ (εὐλογήσας) of the bread, and ‘gave thanks’ 
(εὐχαριστήσας) of the cup. Lk. has the latter of both bread and 
cup, and S. Paul has the latter of the bread, and neither of the 
cup.2 All three Synoptists have ‘blessed’ of the five loaves at 
the feeding of the five thousand, where Jn. has ‘gave thanks.’ 


1 We must take account of the emphatic pronoun: ‘It was thou, and not 
I, who said it.” Jesus would not have said as much, if it had not been drawn 
from Him. The expression is found only in the narratives of the Passion. 

* It is not likely that εὐλογήσας means that He blessed the bread; it has 
the same meaning in reference to the bread as εὐχαριστήσας has in reference 
to the cup. He blessed, or gave thanks to, the Father; perhaps in the Jewish 
formula, ‘‘ Blessed is He who bringeth food out of the earth.” ‘ Bread’ is 
the accusative after ‘took’ (λαβὼν ἄρτον). 


362) GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXVI. 26 


Mt. has ‘gave thanks’ of the loaves and fishes at the feeding of 
the four thousand, where Mk. has ‘gave thanks’ of the loaves 
and ‘blessed’ of the fishes. It is not likely, therefore, that in 
this connexion there is any difference of meaning between the 
words. Both indicate an act of thanksgiving, perhaps in the form 
usual for saying grace at meals. This taking of one loaf, breaking 
it, and distributing it is true catholic ritual (1 Cor. x. 16, xi. 24; 
Ign. 2221. 20); and it is very significant that an article of food so 
simple, and almost universal in its use, should have been adopted 
as a symbol of Christian unity in diversity. This beautiful 
symbolism seems to be obliterated by the employment of separate 
wafers for Holy Communion. 

As regards the words of administration, Mt. and Mk. have 
‘Take’ (λάβετε) of the bread, to which Mt. alone adds ‘ Eat’ 
(φάγετε), and Lk. alone has ‘Take’ of the cup. 5. Paul has 
neither word. ‘This is My Body’ (τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά pov) can 
only mean ‘This Jvead is My Body,’ the pronoun being attracted 
from the masculine to the neuter on account of τὸ σῶμά pov. 
The ‘is’ is not emphatic, and it would not be expressed in 
Aramaic; but it must be understood, and therefore explained, 
even if it is not expressed. Moreover, in the language in which 
our Lord’s words have been preserved for us the ‘is’ is expressed. 
The meaning will perhaps always be disputed. But the choice 
lies between these two: ‘This represents My Body,’ and ‘This is 
(in some sense not specified, and in some way that we cannot 
understand) identified with My Body.’? Those who adopt either 
of these interpretations can give good reasons for their choice. 
But it is not necessary to have the question determined. All 
that is necessary is that the Christian should be assured that 
whoever worthily partakes of the Holy Communion really partakes 
of Christ; and he has this assurance without determining the 
precise meaning of the ‘is.’ See Hastings’ DZ., art. ‘Lord’s 
Supper,’ pp. 148, 149; Ellicott on 1 Cor. xi. 24; T. 5. Evans in 


1 Inferior MSS. add φάγετε in Mk. xiv. 22 ; but this isa manifest interpola- 
tion from Mt. Does the λάβετε imply that our Lord placed the broken bread 
on a plate and told the disciples to help themselves to it? 

2 Such expressions as ‘I am the bread which came down from heaven,’ 
‘I am the light of the world,’ ‘I am the door,’ ‘I am the true vine,’ ‘ Ye are 
the salt of the earth,’ ‘ Ye are the light of the world,’ must not be quoted as 
quite parallel to ‘This (bread) is My Body.’ In all these six instances that 
which is actual and unsymbolized is the subject, and the symbol or metaphor 
is the predicate. This difference may be important. Comp. ‘ My Flesh is 
true meat, and My Blood is true drink,’ and 1 Cor. x. 16. It is necessary 
to be wary in drawing inferences from symbols and metaphors, especially in 
Oriental literature, which is so full of such things. See Swete on Mk. xiv. 
14, Ὁ. 336. If ‘is’ means ‘is identical with,’ some adverb, such as ‘ mystic- 
ally’ or ‘sacramentally,’ must be understood; and what does this adverb 
mean? See J. V. Bartlet in Mansfield College Essays, pp. 64 f, 


XXVI. 26-28] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 363 


the Speakers Commentary on 1 Cor. x. 16; Thirlwall, Charges, 
I. v. and Vi., Il. X., esp. p. 251, ed. Perowne, 1877. 

The four reports that have come down to us of the words of 
institution are very instructive with regard to the question of the 
verbal accuracy of Scripture. Here it is impossible to suppose 
(what is a very reasonable hypothesis in some cases) that our 
Lord uttered similar sayings on different occasions, and that the 
divergent reports of His sayings may be explained by the sup- 
position that His wording was not always exactly the same. It 
is incredible that the words of institution were uttered more than 
once; and yet xo two reports of them agree. The only words 
which are common to all four accounts are ‘This is My Body’; 
and even here there is a slight difference of order (τοῦτό μού 
ἐστιν τὸ σῶμα in τ Cor., and τοῦτό ἐστιν τὸ σῶμά μου in the Gospels). 
It will be useful to place the four reports in pairs. Those of Mt. 
and Mk. are evidently closely related; and those of Lk. and 
1 Cor. are also closely related, if the current texts of Lk. are 
correct, which, however, is very doubtful. 


MT. xxvi. 26-28. ΜΚ. xiv. 22-24. 


Take, eat ; this is My Body. Take ye; this is My Body. 
Drink ye all of it; for 
this is My Blood of the covenant, This is My Blood of the covenant, 
which is shed for many, which is shed for many. 
unto remission of sins, 


LK. xxii. 19, 20. ¥ COR. xi 24, 25. 
This is My Body This is My Body 
[which is given for you: which is for you: 
this do, in remembrance of Me. this do, in remembrance of Me. 
This cup is the new covenant This cup is the new covenant 
in My Blood, in My Blood: 
even that which is poured out for you]. this do, as oft as ye drink it, 


in remembrance of Me. 


The words in brackets are very possibly no part of the original 
copy of Lk., but are an early interpolation. See notes, ad Joc. 
Salmon believes them to be original (Human Element, p. 491). 

It is certainly surprising that there should be such wide 
divergence in the report of such words; and it is specially 
remarkable that neither Mk. nor Mt. record the command to 
continue the celebration of the rite in remembrance of Christ. 
Unless the disputed words in Lk. are genuine, that command 
rests upon the authority of S. Paul alone. The authority 
suffices ; but we should have expected to find the command in 
the Gospel narrative of the institution. The command, ‘ Drink 
ye all from it’ (πίετε ἐξ αὐτοῦ πάντες), is apparently an inference 
drawn by Mt. from the narrative of Mk. Mk, says that they 


364 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVI. 28 


all drank from the cup; and Mt. concludes that our Lord told 
them to do so:! comp. ver. 2. 

. And the divergence ,respecting the words of institution does 
not end with Scripture; it is increased by the ancient liturgies, 
from which we might extract seven or eight other forms. One 
would have supposed that one or other of the Scriptural forms 
would have been selected; but this is not the case. The 
Scriptural forms are blended, and blended in different ways; 
moreover, here and there something is inserted which is not in 
Scripture. We have no means of determining which of the four 
Scriptural forms is most exact. Each may have preserved some 
element that is authentic; and we may believe that the whole 
of Mk.’s report is authentic. But, when we make a mosaic of 
all four reports, we are on much less secure ground, as we see 
from the differences between the mosaics which have been made 
in this way. Pere Girodon, who has some excellent remarks on 
the differences between the Scriptural forms, thinks that all four 
of them are inferior in exactitude to that which is used in the 
Roman Liturgy, which he believes to be a tradition older than 
any of the Gospels.2, But what is the evidence for this? Some 
of the most corrupt readings in the N.T. might be defended on 
this ground. See J. M. Neale, Liturgies of S. Mark, etc., App. 1. 

In ‘ This is My Blood of the covenant,’ the ‘ This’ in stricter 
grammar means ‘this cup,’ but it evidently means the contents 
of the cup. In1 Cor. we have ‘This cup is the new covenant 
in My Blood.’ The Blood was shed to ratify the new covenant 
(Exod. xxiy. 8), and the wine in the cup represents, or in some 
sense is, the Blood. It is not stated in any of the forms who 
are the parties to the covenant, but we may assume that they 
are ‘the many’ and Christ, or ‘the many’ and God. The latter 
is more probably right, and Mt. by the addition of ‘for the 
remission of sins’ seems to have understood it so. Forgiveness 
is covenanted by God under certain conditions, and the covenant 
is ratified by blood (see Westcott on Heb. ix. 20). Hence ‘the 
cup’=the wine=the blood=‘the covenant’; and thus ‘This 
cup is the new covenant’ is true. 

‘There are a number of various readings in this important passage, but 
there is not much difficulty in determining what is right. In ver. 26, ‘ bread’ 
or ‘a loaf,’ ἄρτον (δ BC ΟἹ, Z, Syr-Sin.) is to be preferred to ‘the bread’ 
or ‘the loaf,’ τὸν ἄρτον (AT ATI): ‘blessed,’ εὐλογήσας (NBCDGLZ, 


Syr-Sin. Latt. Copt. Arm. Aeth.) to ‘gave thanks,’ εὐχαριστήσας (AT A ΠῚ: 
in ver. 27, ‘a cup,’ ποτήριον (NBEF GLZAZ2®) to ‘the cup,’ τὸ ποτήριον 


1The rendering ‘Drink ye αὐ from it,’ lit. ‘ Drink from it all of you,’ 
avoids the misconception that ‘all of it? means the whole of the wine. 

2 Tt contains much that is notinthe N.T. 4722 est enim Calix sanguints 
met, novi et eternt testamentt, mystertum fidec: gui pro vobis et pro muitis 
effundetur tn remissionem peccatorum, 


XXVI. 29] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 365 


(ACDHKMSU Vetc.): in ver. 28, ‘the covenant,’ τῆς διαθήκης (δὲ B L Z, 
33, 102, Cyr-Alex. Cypr.) to ‘the new covenant,’ τῆς καινῆς διαθήκης 
(ACDYI Δ εἰς., Latt. Syrr. Boh. Arm. Aeth.). The article before ‘ bread’ 
and ‘cup’ was inserted to emphasize the fact that this was the eucharistic 
bread and the eucharistic cup. ‘Blessed’ was changed to ‘gave thanks’ to 
assimilate the treatment of bread and cup, and also to assimilate with Lk. 
and 1 Cor. ; and ‘new’ was inserted to assimilate with Lk. (Ὁ) and 1 Cor. 
In. ver. 26, the AV. has the better readings, in vv. 27, 28, the worse. 


The saying of Christ, ‘I will not drink henceforth of this 
fruit of the vine, until that day when I drink it new with you 
in My Father’s Kingdom,’ is in all three Gospels, with some slight 
differences of wording. We treat it with scant reverence when 
we regard it as a “poetic utterance,” in interpreting which we 
have chiefly to beware of “turning poetry into prose.” In all 
three accounts it is introduced with the solemn ‘I say unto you.’ 
With Swete and Salmon, we may rightly regard it as “‘ mysterious,” 
and therefore not be over-confident in interpreting it. The 
passage reads like a solemn farewell. Our Lord had greatly 
desired to eat the Passover with them, but He is not going to do 
so [again] until it be fulfilled in the Kingdom of God (Lk. xxii. 
15, 16). And here He says that He will not drink wine any 
more, until He does so in the Kingdom. ‘ Z%zs fruit of the 
vine’ might mean the Passover-wine, but in Mk. and Lk. it is 
simply ‘he fruit of the vine,’ which is a common O.T. expression 
for wine (see the Septuagint of Is. xxxii. 12; Hab. iii. 17; and 
comp. Num. vi. 4), not for the Passover-wine in_particular.! 
Even ‘/7his fruit of the vine’ does not mecessart/y mean the 
Passover-wine. ‘Henceforth’ (ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι), or ‘from henceforth’ 
(ἀπὸ τοῦ νῦν, Lk.) or ‘no more’ (οὐκέτι, which is probably right 
in Mk.), seems clearly to imply that on this occasion our Lord 
did drink from the cup before passing it to the Apostles; and 
it would have been a strange thing for the person who presided 
at a Paschal meal not to do so. Yet some think that the 
symbolism requires that He should have partaken of neither 
the bread nor the wine. ‘I have greatly desired to eat this 
Passover’ points in the other direction. The meaning seems 
to be that He partakes of this Paschal supper, but it is His last. 
He is taking a solemn farewell of the ordinances of the Jewish 
dispensation. But see Jour. of Th. St., July 1908, p. 569. 

‘Until that day when I drink it new with you in My Father’s 


1}fIere and in Mk. and Lk. the right form is γένημα (γίνομαι), not 
γέννημα (yevvdw). In iii. 7, xii. 34, xxill. 33; Lk. iii. 7, γέννημα is right. 
Latin versions differ in translation: generatione vitis, or fructu vine, or 
creatura τρια, οὐ genimine vitis. In ‘drink it mew’ we have not the 
newness of the ‘new wine’ (οἶνον νέον) in ix. 17, a newness which is opposed 
to what is mature, but the newness of the ‘ new heaven’ and the ‘new earth’ 
(καινόν), which is opposed to what is obsolete. See Deissmann, Bible Studies, 
109, 184. 


366 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XXVI. 29, 80 


Kingdom’ is surprising. Will there be any eating and drinking 
in the Kingdom? Why does our Lord not say, ‘Till ye see the 
Kingdom of God come with power’ (Mk. ix. 1), or ‘Till ye see 
the Son of Man coming in His Kingdom’ (Mt. xvi. 28), or 
‘Till I come’ (1 Cor. xi. 26)? Possibly because that Coming 
is associated with thoughts of suddenness and surprise, of swift 
movement and stern judgment (xxiv. 30, 31, 39, 44, XXV. 31, 32), 
and what our Lord desires here to suggest is a hope for satisfac- 
tion and repose and social joy. All of that is far better sym- 
bolized under the Jewish idea of the Kingdom as a banquet (Is. 
xxv. 6; Lk. xili. 29, xiv. 15, xxii. 30; Rev. ili. 20, xix. 9; comp. 
2 Esdr. 11. 38 and the Book of the Secrets of Enoch, viii.). Our 
Lord had adopted this idea in commending the centurion (viii. 
11), and He does so again here. The ‘with you’ is peculiar to 
Mt. here: the Apostles are to share His joy, and He will share 
theirs. And the wine which symbolizes the joy is ‘new’ (καινόν), 
because everything in the Kingdom is new (Rev. iii. 12, v. 9, 
xxl I, 5). It will be joy transformed and glorified; joy so 
different from the joys experienced here that the heart of man 
cannot conceive it. With ‘the Kingdom of My Father,’ which 
again is peculiar to Mt. here, comp. ‘the Kingdom of their 
Father’ (xiii. 43). 


XXVI. 30-35. Departure to the Mount of Olives. 
Desertion and Denial foretold. 


The ‘hymn’ which was sung at the close of the Paschal 
meal was no doubt one or more of the Psalms (cxxxvi. or cxv.— 
cxvili.), which were often called hymns. Lk. tells us that it was 
‘His custom’ to go out to the Mt. of Olives, so that this termina- 
tion of the meal would excite no surprise in the disciples, who 
were perhaps still meditating on the declaration that one of the 
Twelve was a traitor, and on the departure of Judas.1 Was it 
he who was going to deliver the Lord up? Then comes the 
startling prediction, ‘A// ye (πάντες ὑμεῖς) shall be offended’; 
which Mt. makes still more definite by adding, ‘in Me this 
night.’ It is about nothing less than the Messiah that this 
catastrophe is to happen; and it is no mere possibility in the 
distant future; it will take place at once. The quotation from 
Zech. xiii. 7, by which this disquieting prophecy is supported, is 

1 The exact time of departure from the upper room is uncertain. Mt. 
and Mk. place it before the prediction of Peter’s denial, Lk. (xxii. 39) and 
Jn. (xiv. 31) place it after that prediction. Note the characteristic ‘Then,’ 
vv. 31, 36, 38. Inthe apocryphal Acts of John, our Lord composes a hymn 
of many verses, some of which are evidently of Gnostic origin. It was 
attributed to the Priscillianists, but Augustine says that it was found elsewhere 
than in their writings. Donehoo, pp. 310-312. 


XXVI.31] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 367 


in Mk. as well as in Mt. It appears to be an independent 
translation from the Hebrew.! It sets forth the general principle, 
soon to be so sadly illustrated by the conduct of the Apostles, 
that the striking down of the shepherd means the scattering of 
the sheep. ‘For it stands written’ (γέγραπται γάρ) is part of 
Christ’s saying ; it is not a remark of the Evangelist to point out 
a fulfilment of prophecy. The prediction of their own failure 
evidently made more impression upon Peter, and presumably 
upon the others also, than the comforting assurance that He 
would rise from the dead and see them again in Galilee (xxviii. 
το, 16; Mk. xvi. 7). The disciples would in any case be likely 
to return to Galilee after the Passover was over; all the more 
so as Jerusalem would be unsafe for them. This departure is 
clearly given in the last lines of the fragment of the Gospel 
according to Peter (xiii.): ‘Now it was the last day of the 
Unleavened Bread, and many went forth returning to their 
homes, as the feast was ended. But we, the twelve (s7c) disciples 
of the Lord, wept and were grieved; and each one grieving for 
that which was come to pass departed to his home. But 1, 
Simon Peter, and Andrew my brother took our nets and went 
away to the sea; and there was with us Levi the son of Alphzus, 
whom the Lord. . . ." Our Lord encourages them to take this 
step, by promising to be in Galilee before they are. The scatter- 
ing will certainly take place, but a reunion is equally certain.” 
Peter does not notice the promised Resurrection, which none 
of them as yet understand, nor the promised reunion. Conscious 
of his own affection for the Lord, he impetuously repudiates for 
himself the prediction that he will be made to stumble respecting 
Him. In his characteristic impulsiveness he is guilty of three 
faults. He contradicts our Lord; he claims to be stronger than 
the other disciples; and he relies on his own strength. He 
might have remembered his own prayer, when he was sinking in 
the lake, ‘Lord, save me’ (xiv. 30), or that of all of them in the 
storm, ‘Save, Lord, we perish’ (viii. 25). Mt. makes the 
repudiation very emphatic. Mk. has simply, ‘yet will not I’; 
while Mt. has, ‘I will never be made to stumble.’ The reply of 
Christ is equally emphatic. The solemn ‘I say unto thee’ (λέγω 
got) is in all four Gospels; in Mt. and Mk. this is preceded by 


1 Both Mt. and Mk., and also the Ἐὰν πὶ fragment containing this saying, 
have ‘I will smite’ for ‘smite ye’ (πατάξω for πατάξατε). The imperative 
would hardly have made sense here. ‘Of the flock’ (τῆς ποίμνης) is not in 
the Hebrew, but is added in A in the Septuagint, whence Mt. probably 
derived it. Comp. the quotation in xix. 5, and see Swete, 712. to the O.T. 
in Greek, p. 393. 

* The contrast between the mournful scattering of the disciples and the 
joyful Resurrection and reunion is more strongly marked in Mk. (ἀλλά) than 
in Mt. (δέ). 


368 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 35-88 


‘Verily,’ in Jn. by the double ‘Verily.’ Lk. has ‘to-day,’ Mt. 
‘this night,’ Mk. has both, and Jn. neither, of the time when the 
denial is to take place. That Peter repudiated the special 
prediction respecting himself, and in this was followed by the 
others, is mentioned by Mt. and Mk. alone. Mk. says that he 
continued to do this with vehemence (ἐκπερισσῶς ἐλάλει), and 
Mt. compensates for omitting the words by turning ‘If I must 
die with Thee’ into ‘#ven if I must die with Thee’; and his 
vehemence encourages the others to repudiate also.! 


XXVI. 36-46. The Agony in Gethsemane. 


Perhaps the Evangelists had no such intention, but they 
exhibit a tragic irony in placing our Lord’s prayer in the garden 
immediately after the confident boasting of Peter and his 
companions. The Apostles are so sure of their own strength 
that they will not allow the possibility of failure, even when they 
are forewarned of it by Christ. ‘The Son of Man is so conscious 
of the weakness of His humanity that He prays to the Father 
that He may be spared the approaching trial. He feels the need 
of being strengthened by prayer. And although He at other times 
followed His own rule (vi. 6) of praying in retirement (xiv. 23), 
here He seems to have desired the company and sympathy of 
His three most intimate disciples. ‘They had been witnesses of 
His glory (xvii. 1, 2), and they are now to be witnesses of His 
humiliation.2. Yet it is for their own sakes rather than for His, 
that He has them there. Mt., as usual, tones down expressions 
which attribute human emotions to the Messiah; ‘greatly 
amazed’ (ἐκθαμβεῖσθαι) becomes ‘sorrowful’ (λυπεῖσθαι), but the 
strong ‘sore troubled’ (adnwovety) remains unchanged (see 
Lightfoot on Phil 1. 26). Mt. was perhaps influenced by 
Christ’s own confession, ‘My soul is exceeding sorrowful,’ in 
changing ‘greatly amazed’ into ‘sorrowful.’ With this mention 
of His ‘soul’ (ψυχή), which is very exceptional, comp. Jn. xii. 27. 
“The narrative does not encourage the view which prevails in 
many patristic commentaries, that the Lord’s sorrow and prayers 
were only for the sins and woes of men. His human soul shrank 


1 As in xxii. 26, Mt. has ὁμοίως where Mk. has ὡσαύτως. For ‘cock- 
crow’ as a mark of time comp. Aristoph. Zccles. 390; Juvenal, ix. 107. 

2 Mk. says ‘James and John,’ Mt. ‘the sons of Zebedee’; Lk. does not 
mention them, and Jn. omits the whole incident. On the ἐκεῖ (39) see on 
XXVIl. 47. 

3 It seems to imply ‘‘ bewilderment,” a ‘‘ half-distracted state,” as if His 
soul could hardly see its way. But His trust in His Father’s love is not 
shaken, even by the contents of the cup which was given Him to drink. The 
Son’s will decides for the Father’s will, not for the Son’s wish. Sonship of 
necessity means submission. With ΠΕεριλυπὸς, «.7.A., comp. Σφόδρα λελύπη- 
μαι ἐγὼ ἕως θανάτου (Jonah iy. 9). 


XXVI. 38-41] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 369 


from the Cross, and the fact adds to our sense of the greatness 
of His sacrifice” (Swete on Mk. xiv. 34). 

Mt., while he omits one or two small things, probably as 
superfluous (e.g. ‘that the hour might pass from Him’; 
‘Abba... all things are possible unto Thee’; ‘Simon’), 
yet adds some things which are of interest. Chief of these are 
‘with Me’ after ‘watch,’ both in the charge to be wakeful (38) 
and in the reproach for sleeping (40); and again the addition of 
‘My’ to ‘Father’ (Πάτερ μου). The chosen three are to share 
His watch and listen to His prayers: that they were said aloud is 
manifest, and perhaps very loud, so that the disciples could 
easily hear, even at a little distance. The ‘strong crying and 
tears’ of Heb. v. 7 may refer to this. 

Other differences between the three Gospels are very in- 
structive. Lk. gives only one prayer and one reproach to the 
disciples, who apparently are the whole Eleven, for the three 
are not mentioned apart from the rest. Mk. says that our 
Lord returned thrice to the sleeping three, but he mentions 
only two prayers; and he says that when our Lord prayed 
the second time He used ‘the same words’ as in the first 
prayer. Mt. alone distinguishes three prayers. He gives the 
first two, which differ in a remarkable way, and says that in 
the third prayer Christ said ‘again the same words’ as in 
the second. Lk., though less definite, can be harmonized 
with either Mt. or Mk., but Mt. and Mk. cannot be harmonized 
with one another. Moreover, in no two cases is the wording 
of Christ’s prayer the same. 


MrT. MK. Lx. 
1. My Father Abba, Father, Father, 
if it be possible, all things are possible if Thou be willing, 
to Thee; 
let this cup pass remove this cup remove this cup 
from Me: from Me: from Me: 
nevertheless, notasI will, howbeit, not what I will, nevertheless, not My will, 
but as Thou. but what Thou. but Thine, be done. 
2. My Father, [Same words 
if this cannot pass, as in 1.} 


except I drink it, 
Thy will be done. 


3. [Same words 
as in 2.] 


It is clear from our Lord’s own action at this crisis that vi. 7 
does not forbid the repetition of prayers, even in the same form 


1 It is probably under the influence of Mk. that a few witnesses (L A, a, 
Just. M.) omit the μου in ver. 39 but not in ver. 42. 


24 


370 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVI. 41-44 


of words.1 Why did He repeat His prayer in Gethsemane? 
We may reverently suppose that He Himself knew that the first 
utterance of the prayer had not been complete in its success. 
His human will was not yet in absolute unison with the will of 
His Father; and in this we may trace progress between the first 
prayer and the second. In both cases the prayer is made 
conditionally, but in the first the condition is positive, in the 
second it is negative. ‘If it be possible’ has become ‘If it be 
not possible,’ and there is no longer any petition that the cup 
may be removed. We may believe that in the third prayer, even 
if the same words were used, the ‘If’ has become equivalent to 
‘since’: ‘Since this cup cannot pass from Me, Thy will be 
done.’2 In Mk. ‘All things are possible to Thee’ means ‘ All 
things that Thou willest are possible.’ It cannot mean that what 
God does not will are possible for Him. And in Mt, ‘If it be 
possible’ means ‘If Thou be willing,’ which is what Lk. writes. 
With this threefold prayer of our Lord we compare the three- 
fold prayers of Elijah (1 Kings xvii. 21) and of S. Paul (2 Cor. 
xii. 8). In each case the result is peace, through the union of 
the human will with the Divine will. But Elijah’s prayer needs 
to be repeated to increase his own earnestness in desiring that 
which God is ready to grant, and to make himself more worthy 
to receive such a boon. Prayer is not an engine by which we 
overcome the unwillingness of God. God is ever ready to grant 
what is really good for us, when we have, by prayer, made 
ourselves ready to receive it. 

As on the Mount of Transfiguration, the three disciples 
struggle, and unsuccessfully, with heavy drowsiness. It was 
caused, as Lk. says, by great sorrow, which is very exhausting. 
The words in which the Lord reproaches and warns them 
are not quite the same in all three Gospels. Both Mt. and 
Mk. tell us that, on the first return, these words, though 
meant for all (‘Watch ye and pray’), were specially addressed 
to Peters who in Mk. is addressed by his old name, 
‘Simon,’—perhaps to suggest to him that he is in danger 
of forfeiting his right to be called the ‘Rock-man.’ Mt. also 
omits, as at the Transfiguration, that Peter ‘wist not what to 


1 Possibly τὸν αὐτὸν λόγον means ‘the same prayer,’ rather than ‘the same 
words.’ The substance of the request, rather than the wording of it, may be 
intended. Even so, prayers for a special object may be repeated. 

2 The echo of the Lord’s Prayer is heard clearly in these words ; and we 
catch another echo in the charge to the disciples (41). 

3 “Tn His will is our peace” (Dante, Par. iii. 85). 

+ Mt. transfers the rebuke as well as the warning from Peter to all three; 
‘ Couldest ¢iow not watch one hour?’ has become ‘ Could ye not watch with 
Me one hour?’ and Mt. omits the significant ‘Simon.’ They had promised 
to die with Him, and this is the result. 


OO Ach se ee ee he Fw 


τ ae ᾿ ee 7 "πὶ - ὦ - aw > 


7 
ἢ 
ΐ 
ξ 
< 


XXVI. 45] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 371 


answer.’ As often, he spares the Apostles by omitting what 
might be blamed. 

That the disciples struggled to be wakeful need not be 
doubted. They had been charged to watch (38), and at such a 
time they would be anxious to be loyal to the Lord’s commands. 
Moreover, the saying (so often quoted, because in such intense 
agreement with human experience), ‘The spirit indeed is willing, 
but the flesh is weak,’ implies that the disciples had been willing 
to obey, but had been overcome by frailty of the flesh.) And 
we may believe that, in giving this warning to the Three, our 
Lord is speaking out of the fulness of His own pressing 
experience. Even He has been finding that the most perfect 
human nature may feel weakness when confronted with the 
supreme requirements of the will of God. If He needed to be 
strengthened by prayer, how much more did His faulty disciples ! 
Yet none of the narratives represent Him as asking the disciples 
to pray for im. It is for their own sakes that He bids them 
to be watchful and prayerful; and it is probably in reference to 
the Prayer which He had taught them that He says, ‘ Pray, that 
ye enter not into temptation.’ He had entered into temptation, 
and had felt the full strain; He desires, therefore, that they may 
be protected, as He has been, by prayer. 

Is ‘Sleep on now and take your rest’ (45) spoken in 
mournful irony? To take it so does not fit very well with 
‘Arise, let us be going,’ which immediately follows, without any 
intimation that there has been a pause. It is possible to take 
the words as a question, like ‘Could ye not watch with Me one 
hour?’ (40), and like ‘Simon, sleepest thou?’ (Mk. xiv. 37). 
‘Are ye going to sleep on and take your rest?’ This makes 
one more sad reproach. They had been slumbering while He 
was in agony; but surely they will not continue to slumber, 
when the sound of the traitor’s footsteps will soon be heard. See 
Klostermann on Mk. xiv. 41, and B. Weiss, margin. 

Mt. omits the rather difficult and ambiguous ‘It is enough’ 
(ἀπέχει); perhaps because he was not sure of its meaning, or 
possibly because he thought that it was implied in ‘the hour is 
at hand.’ The simplest meaning is ‘ enough of slumber.’ 

There is no need to inquire whether our Lord “felt the 
proximity of the traitor even before he was there” (J. Weiss), or 
became aware of his approach through the noise of the multitude 
and the lights which they carried. ‘The Son of Man is being 

1See Swete on Mk. xiv. 38; Westcott on Jn. iii. 6; Sanday and 
Headlam on Rom. viii. 9. Tertullian (De Aaft. 20) gives as a saying of the 
Lord previous to His arrest, that ‘no one who has not been tempted can 
enter the Kingdom of Heaven’) neminem intemplatum regna calestia 


consecuturum), and it is perhaps here that He is supposed to have uttered it. 
See Resch, Agrapha, p. 130. 


372 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 45-47 


delivered up into sinners’ hands’ refers to the action of Judas, 
which is going on at the moment, in handing the Messiah over 
to His enemies among the Jews and to the heathen soldiers who 
aided them,—two kinds of sinners which are distinguished in 
XK. Τὸ, τὸ: 


Here, as in vv. 21, 23, 24, 25, 46, 48, the AV. prefers ‘betray’ to 
‘deliver up,’ and the RV. makes no change. In Mk. xiv. 41 both 
substantives have the article, τὰς χεῖρας τῶν ἁμαρτωλῶν, in Mt. neither has it; 
but even the RV. does not distinguish. It is remarkable how often in this 
section Mt. has the graphic historic present, of which Mk. is so fond, but 
which Mt. commonly avoids, either by change of tense or by omission. Here 
both Evangelists have ‘saith’ (31), ‘cometh,’ ‘saith’ (36), ‘saith’ (38), 
‘cometh,’ ‘ findeth,’ ‘saith’ (40), ‘cometh,’ ‘saith’ (45); and once (35) Mt. 
has λέγει where Mk. has ἐλάλει. 


‘Let us be going’ (ἄγωμεν) is ambiguous in English, and 
might be understood to mean ‘Let us fly from this peril,’ which 
is not at all what is intended. The meaning is, ‘Let us go to 
meet this peril’ (Jn. xviii. 4). His hour is come, and He is 
anxious to fulfil all that is required of Him. The charge which 
Celsus seems to have made that Jesus “tried to escape by 
disgracefully concealing Himself” (Orig. Coz. Cels. ii. 10) may 
have been based upon a misinterpretation of ‘ Let us be going’ 
(Abbott, Paradosis, p. 157). Of the three that Christ was 
addressing, Peter and John already knew who was meant by ‘he 
that is delivering Me up’ (Jn. xiii. 26); they now see in what 
way he had been carrying out his designs. There is no 
suggestion that they had been told to watch for the approach of 
the traitor, so as to warn the Lord. He had no need to be 
warned, for He had no intention of escaping. It was against 
temptation to themselves, not against danger to Him, that they 
were charged to watch. Even without the aid of legions of 
Angels He could have escaped. We are perhaps to understand 
that the other eight Apostles came up when the band with 
Judas was approaching. ‘They were near enough at the time of 
the arrest to be said to have ‘left Him and fled’ (56). 


XXXVI. 47-56. The Arrest of the Messiah. 


All three mention that it was while Jesus ‘ was still speaking’ 
that ‘Judas, one of the Twelve,’ led the hostile multitude to 
arrest Jesus ; and all three mention the betrayal by means of a 
kiss. Nothing that has been told of Judas has so excited the 
horror of Christendom as the incident of this demonstrative 
(κατεφίλησεν) and atrociously treacherous kiss. Jn. omits it, and 
Mt. may have had no other authority than Mk. But Lk. is 
independent of both, so that the fact rests upon the authority of 


XXVI. 47-50] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 373 


at least two sources ; and it is not likely that so hateful a detail 
was invented. Christian detestation of his crime might imagine 
a specially horrible end for Judas, but there is no reason for 
believing that it added imaginary blackness to his crime. The 
Evangelists are singularly restrained about the traitor; with them 
it is sufficient condemnation to mention that he was ‘one of the 
Twelve’ (vv. 14, 47; Mk. xiv. 10, 20, 43; Lk. xxii. 3, 47; Jn. 
vi. 71). 

Me, Mk., and Jn. represent the multitude that came with 
Judas as sent by the chief priests. Lk. supposes the chief priests 
and elders to have been present, and to have been addressed by 
Christ ; and it is possible that some of them may have come, in 
order to see whether the plot was successful. Evidently, there 
was no intention to arrest any of the disciples. ΤῸ capture them 
would increase the risk of disturbance, and without their leader 
they would not be dangerous. Hence the necessity for a sign 
by which the captors might distinguish Jesus from His followers. 
In the charge which Judas gives to his supporters, Mt. omits 
‘lead Him away safely’ (ἀπάγετε ἀσφαλῶς). Does he omit it as 
superfluous, or as implying an unworthy conception of the 
Messiah? It was an additional outrage on the part of the 
traitor to suggest that the Lord might take refuge in flight. In 
any case, the omitted words show how anxious Judas has 
become that his treachery should be successful. Jesus had 
exposed him to Amse/f at the Supper, whether or no the Eleven 
had understood what was said; and Judas is now wholly on the 
side of the enemy. In his address to Jesus, the ‘ Hail’ (χαῖρε) 
before ‘Rabbi’ is peculiar to Mt., whose report of Christ’s reply 
to Judas is also peculiar to him, and the meaning of it is not 
plain. ‘Friend, wherefore art thou come?’ is not right. 
‘Comrade’ rather than ‘ Friend’ is the meaning of ἑταῖρος : 1 and 
our Lord would hardly, at this climax of the apostate’s wicked- 
ness, address him as ‘Friend.’ Judas had long since ceased to 
be Christ’s friend, while still remaining His companion. The 
remaining words (ἐφ᾽ ὃ πάρει) mean ‘for which thou art come,’ and 
something must be understood. ‘Comrade, do that for which 
thou art come’; ze. Accomplish thy treachery. Or, ‘Zs ‘his the 
end for which thou art come?’ z.e. Hast thou really sunk to this 
depth of wickedness? Or, ‘Dost thou kiss Me for that for 
which thou art come ?’ ze. Dost thou think a kiss fitting for such 
a purpose as this? Or, ‘Z know well for what thou art come.’ 
It is impossible to say which of these is right. If the text is not 


1 The word occurs as a form of address xx. 13, xxii. 12; and in the dat, 
lur. as a doubtful reading xi. 16; but nowhere else in the N.T. πάρει ma 
a from either παριέναι or παρεῖναι. If ‘do that for which thou art come’ is 

right, comp. Jn. xiii. 27. 


, 


274 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 85. MATTHEW [XXVI. 50-53 


corrupt, it may be a colloquial expression to which the clue is 
lost. 


Blass would read afpe for ἑταῖρε: ‘ Take that for which thou art come.’ 
But this is conjecture without any documentary support. Moreover, the 
word occurs twice in parables, and each time in the vocative, and in making 
a remonstrance; so that it represents some word which our Lord was 
accustomed to use in the kind of connexion in which we have it here. If the 
text of the saying is corrupt, it is not ἑταῖρε that is likely to be wrong. Note 
the ‘Then’ here and in ver. 52, where we again have the historic present. 


It is the way in which the Messiah acted when His hour was 
come that chiefly interests Mt. Hence these utterances of our 
Lord (50, 52, 53, 54), which no one else records, though Jn. 
has part of ver. 52. It is possible that the name of the disciple 
who smote the high priest’s servant is suppressed for prudential 
reasons ; when Jn. wrote there was no further need for silence. 
Mt. and Lk. are a little more definite than Mk., who merely 
says that it was ‘one of them that stood by.’ Mt. and Lk. 
admit that it was one of those who were with Jesus. Jn. alone 
gives the servant’s name, which he would know through his 
intimacy with the high priest. Like Simon, Malchus was a 
common name; there are five instances in Josephus. Malchus 
was perhaps the first to ‘lay hands on Jesus,’ and hence Peter’s 
impetuous assault, which possibly had no other meaning than 
that of protecting the Master from outrage; but Peter may have 
wished to distract attention from Christ to himself. 

The source of the verses which follow (52-54) is unknown ; 
but ‘Return thy sword into its place’ is confirmed by ‘Put the 
sword into the sheath’ (Jn. xviii. 11). It was probably a knife 
(μάχαιρα in all four Gospels) rather than a sword. We know 
that the disciples had two such weapons (Lk. xxii. 38), and 
Peter possibly carried one of these. 

Our Lord will have no help from human violence. If He 
willed it, which means, if His Father willed it, He could ask, 
and be sure of receiving, overwhelming assistance from heaven.? 


1 Lk. records quite a different answer: ‘Judas, betrayest thou the Son of 
Man with a kiss?’ Jn. gives as our Lord’s first words, ‘ Whom seek ye?’ If 
‘that for which thou art come’ is rightly recorded as having been said by 
Christ, the purpose of the words may have been to make Judas realize the 
enormity of his conduct. ‘Think what thou art doing ;—for the sake of a 
small reward, betraying the Messiah, thine own Master and companion, with 
a kiss.’ But, whatever the exact meaning of the words may be, they seem 
to have silenced Judas. No reply of his is recorded. He was as ‘speechless’ 
as the man in the parable (spoken only a day or two earlier) to whom the 
king said, ‘Friend, how camest thou in hither?’—Eratpe, πῶς εἰσῆλθες 
ὧδε; (xxii. 12). 

2 The mention of Angels here is strong corroboration of what has been 
urged above as to our Lord’s teaching respecting them; see on xiii. 49, 
XV. 27, XVili. IO, xxii. 30, xxiv. 36. 


mse -ὦ 


7 Σ «Κ, 


XXVI. 54-56] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 375 


But He knows that the cup of suffering must be drunk, and 
that the hour for drinking it has come, and He will not again 
ask, even conditionally, that it may be removed or postponed. 
The Scriptures have said (Ps. xxii. ; Is. liii.) that it is by suffering 
that the Messiah must conquer. Lk. says nothing about the 
fulfilment of Scripture, a point which Mt. insists upon twice 
(54, 56); and he makes it all the more emphatic by expressing, 
what Mk. (xiv. 49) implies, that ‘all this is come to pass in 
order that’ there may be fulfilment, and by giving the fuller 
phrase, ‘the Scriptures of the Prophets.’ 

It is quite clear that in ver. 54 the saying about the fulfilment 
of the Scriptures is part of what Christ says. In ver. 56 there is 
doubt, as in i. 22, whether ‘But all this is come to pass’ is 
meant as a continuation of the preceding speech or as Mt.’s own 
comment. Mk. gives it as part of Christ’s speech (xiv. 49).1 
The point is immaterial, for ver. 54 is explicit, and it gives rise 
to this question. Did this serene statement of His reason for 
submitting without resistance convey to the disciples, and in 
particular to Judas, any impression of Christ’s confidence that 
His cause would in the end be triumphant? Here may be the 
turning-point in the attitude of Judas from greed and resentment 
to remorse. He had been absolutely successful; and, at the 
very moment of his success, his Victim claims, with unruffled 
assurance, to be fulfilling the prophecies respecting the Messiah. 
Perfecto demum scelere, magnitudo ejus intellecta est (Tac. Ann, 
XiV. 10). 

It is certainly remarkable that Judas is nowhere said to have 
borne witness against Jesus at any of the trials before the 
Sanhedrin or Pilate or Herod. And he could have quoted 
utterances which would have told against Christ in a prejudiced 
court; e.g. His predictions of His coming again in glory, and 
of the destruction of the Temple and of Jerusalem (Salmon, 
Human Element, p. 502). What was it that withheld him from 
doing so? Some change apparently had begun. 


-It is not likely that ‘in that hour’ (55) refers to ‘the hour’ of the 
Messiah’s Passion (45). The expression is common in Mt. (viii. 13, ix. 
22, x. 19, xv. 28, xvii. 18, xviii. 1); and it is said to be common in 
Rabbinical Literature. And it is not certain that the words which follow, 
‘and which are in all three Gospels, ought to be taken as a question. They 
may be a reproachful statement of fact. ‘Ye are come out as against a 
robber with swords and staves.’ ‘As against a robber’ is placed first with 
emphasis. This was an aggravation of the outrage. He was a peaceful 
Teacher, who was always at their disposal, and they were treating Him as 
a dangerous bandit. Comp. Martyr. Polyc. vii. 1. 


1 Would Mt. transfer the declaration from our Lord to himself? In 
xxi. 4 there is no doubt, and also (in the true text) no ὅλον. See Lightfoot, 
On Revision, p. 100. 


276 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVI. 56-60 


‘Then all the disciples left Him and fled’ (56) must include 
more than the chosen Three. In Mk. the ‘all’ is very 
emphatic. It seems to look back to the prediction that they 
would ‘all be offended’ in Christ that night (31), a prediction 
which they had resented as incredible. With characteristic 
candour, the Gospels tell us that it was fulfilled. There was 
not one exception. With ‘left’ (ἀφέντες) comp. xxiii. 38, xxiv. 
40, 41: ‘left Him to His fate’ is the meaning. 


XXXVI. 57-68. The Trial of the Messiah before the 
High Priest. 


As in ver. 3, Mt. is the only Synoptist who gives us the name 
of the high priest, and, like the others, he distinguishes two 
trials before the Sanhedrin, an informal one in the night, anda 
formal one after daybreak. It is the nocturnal meeting which 
is here described, and it takes place in the house of Caiaphas, 
the official high priest, with whom very likely lived his father-in- 
law, Annas, who, although he had been deposed by the Romans, 
was still regarded by many of the Jews as the true high priest. 
Mt. seems to mean that the Sanhedrin was already gathered 
together (συνήχθησαν), when the Prisoner was brought. Mk. 
rather implies that they came together after He was led to the 
high priest. They had resolved that He was to be put to 
death: the important thing now was to find a legal justification 
for so doing. Mk. says that ‘they sought witness against Jesus 
to put Him to death,’ and he states afterwards that the witness 
which they procured was false. Mt., rather illogically, says that 
they ‘sought false witness,’ as if they preferred to have testimony 
that was untrue. He may mean to attribute this perverse 
intention to them; but who would prefer false testimony to 
‘rue? They wanted testimony, whether true or false, which 
would justify sentence of death; and this they could not find, 
though plenty of false witnesses came. No two witnesses agreed 
about anything that could be regarded as a capital offence.? 

Mt., who often omits numerals (see on ver. 18), here puts 
in a numeral. ‘But afterward came fwo, and said,’ etc. The 


1There is a passage in the Mishna which may represent the legal 
practice of the Sanhedrin in the time of Christ, and, if so, it was grossly 
violated when He was tried by that court. Witnesses were warned to be 
scrupulously careful in a trial for a capital offence: ‘‘ Forget not, O witness, 
that it is one thing to give evidence in a trial for money, and another ina 
trial for life. In a money-suit, if thy witness-bearing shall do wrong, money 
may repair that wrong; but in this trial for life, if thou sinnest, the blood 
of the accused and the blood of his seed unto the end of time shall be 
imputed unto thee.” And special care was taken that a reprieve, if there 
was one, should not come too late (Brodrick, Zhe Tréal and Crucifixion of 
Jesus Christ, p. 80). 


XXVI. 61, 62] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 377 


meaning of the ‘two’ is that the minimum of testimony required 
by the Law (Deut. xvii. 6, xix. 15 ; Num. xxxv. 30) had at last 
been found. Mt. tones down ‘1 will destroy’ (Ἐγὼ καταλύσω) 
to ‘I am able to destroy’ (dvvayat καταλῦσαι), and it is the same 
Temple (τὸν ναὸν τοῦ Θεοῦ) which is destroyed and built. The 
distinction between ‘this Temple made with hands’ and 
‘another made without hands’ is omitted. Mt. appears to 
think that this charge of saying that He was able to destroy 
and rebuild the Temple was one of the charges on which Jesus 
was condemned to death, and therefore he omits ‘And not even 
so did their witness agree together’ (Mk. xiv. 59), which shows 
that this charge had failed! Jn. (ii. 19) tells us what Jesus 
said; Mt. and Mk. tell us what He was reported to have said; 
and no two of the three statements agree. Jesus had said that 
if the Jews destroyed ‘this Temple’ (of His Body), He would 
raise it up in three days. So far as we know, He had said 
nothing about destroying the Temple (in any sense) Himself. 
But He had foretold the destruction of the actual Temple 
(xxiv. 2); and some report of this prediction may have got 
abroad, and have been twisted into a threat that He would 
destroy the building. If the charge was made in the form in 
which Mk. gives it, and also in the form in which Mt. gives it, 
we have an illustration of the statement that ‘their witness did 
not agree together.’ It is, however, more probable that the 
report of the charge in Mt. is simply Mt.’s modification of the 
charge as made in Mk. 

To this charge about the Temple our Lord makes no answer. 
His silence might be interpreted as meaning that He could not 
deny the accusations; but, as the accusations did not agree, 
there was no need to answer them. And, if silence was to be 
taken as assent, to which of the inconsistent charges was He 
assenting? Caiaphas feels that they have got hold of no 
tangible ground for condemnation. He therefore stands up for 
greater impressiveness and solemnly invites Christ to make some 
reply (62).2, When Christ preserves His silence, Caiaphas tries 
an entirely new topic. We do not know whether it had been 
reported to Caiaphas that Jesus had claimed to be the Messiah, 
and Caiaphas does not ask Him whether He had done so. 


1 Strangely enough, the very men who wanted to convict the Messiah of 
having threatened to destroy the Temple were themselves destroying the 
Temple. By killing the Christ they were compassing the destruction of 
Jerusalem. To them His silence seemed to be contempt of court. But it 
was they who contemned the court by prostituting it to such uses. 

2 Mt. omits the superfluous ‘in the midst’ and the still more superfluous 
‘and answered nothing.’ Does Caiaphas ask two questions (AV., RV.), 
or one (Vulg., Tisch.)? Nzhil respondes ad ea que isti adversum ἐξ 
testificantur? See also the Vulg. of Mk. xiv. 60, 


378 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 68, 64 


But he must have heard that people wondered whether Jesus 
was the Messiah, and that at the triumphal entry He had been 
hailed as the Messiah. The question of Caiaphas is therefore 
quite natural. But it is remarkable that he joins together ‘the 
Messiah’ and ‘the Son of God,’ as if they were synonymous. 
This was not the universal view of the Messiah among the 
Jews. In the Psalms of Solomon, where the use of this title 
for the great Deliverer possibly begins, the Messiah is the son 
of David, but not the Son of God. He is a second Solomon, 
without Solomon’s sins.! But in the Book of Enoch (cv. 2; 
comp. Ixii. 14) He is the Son of God, as also in 2 Esdras 
(vii. 28, 29, xiv. 9). We may therefore believe that, like 
Nathanael (Jn. 1. 49), Caiaphas held this view respecting 
the Messiah. It is, however, possible that he combined 
the two titles with a sinister object. To get Jesus to admit 
that He claimed to be the Son of God would be more 
important than to get Him to say that He was the Messiah. 
The former would amount far more clearly, in the eyes of the 
Sanhedrin, to blasphemy. Mt. alone tells us that the high 
priest put this question with the utmost solemnity, adjuring 
Christ to reply to it: ‘I adjure thee by the living God, that 
Thou tell us’ (63). 

Our Lord, who had recognised no obligation to answer false 
and conflicting charges, at once recognizes the right of the 
head of the Jewish Church to question Him about such a 
matter. And He perhaps also admitted that the form of 
adjuration which Caiaphas is reported to have employed added 
to the obligation to answer.? At any rate He did not object 
to it. In His reply, as in the high priest’s question, there is a 
difference between Mt. and Mk. Caiaphas probably said, ‘the 
Son of the Blessed,’ and not ‘the Son of God.’ Did Jesus say, 
‘Thou hast said’ (σὺ εἶπας), or ‘I am’ (Ἐγώ eijy)? Here Mt. 
seems the more exact; but Mk.’s giving ‘I am’ as an equivalent - 
shows that ‘Thou hast said’ was understood to be a form of 
affirmation, though a qualified form. By ‘the Messiah, the Son 
of God,’ Caiaphas would mean something very different from 
what our Lord would mean by the expression; it is therefore 
more probable that Christ gave a qualified rather than an 
absolute assent to what was asked. He could not say that He 
was not the Christ, the Son of God, meaning that He was not 
what Caiaphas understood by the words; that would have been 

1See Ryle and James, pp. liv, Iv; Schiirer, 1. ii. pp. 158-162; 
Hastings’ DB., art. ‘Son of God,’ pp. 570, 571. Mk. has ‘the Son of 
the Blessed’ for ‘the Son of God,’ and Caiaphas is more likely to have used 
that expression, to avoid using the Divine Name. Comp. Enoch Ixxvii. 1; 


and see Dalman, Words, p. 200. 
* See Burkitt, 7/7'S., April 1904, p. 453: 


XXVI. 64] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 379 


utterly misleading. On the other hand, He might mislead if 
He gave full assent with ‘I am.’ A formula which neither 
denied nor gave full assent would be in place. In Lk. it is the 
high priest who asks whether He is the Christ, to which He 
gives no direct answer. Then the whole Sanhedrin asks 
whether He is the Son of God; and He then gives an indirect 
reply which combines the answers in Mt. and Mk.: ‘Ye say that 
I am’ (ὑμεῖς λέγετε ὅτι ἐγώ εἰμι), where there is a strong 
emphasis on the ‘ Ye,’ as here and ver. 25 on the ‘Thou’: ‘It is 
not I who say this, but you.’ 

The solemn introductory formula, ‘ Nevertheless I say to 
you,’ like ‘I adjure thee by the living God,’ is peculiar to Mt., 
who thus gives additional emphasis to both the high priest’s 
question and the Messiah’s reply. The ‘henceforth’ (ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι), 
or in Lk. ‘from henceforth’ (ἀπὸ τοῦ viv), is not easy. In what 
sense was it true that the sight of the Son of Man sitting at the 
right hand of Power! began from His being condemned to death 
by the rulers of the Jews? One expects ‘hereafter’ rather than 
‘henceforth,’ but the latter seems to mean that their condemna- 
tion led to His glory; there was not merely sequence, but con- 
sequence. He who now stands before their judgment-seat will 
then be seated on the clouds, invested with Divine Power, and 
ready to judge them; comp. xxiv. 30. See Montefiore, pp. 764 f. 

These two verses (63, 64) are of great import. They intro- 
duce a great change in Christ’s method. Just as He had taken 
great pains to avoid premature capture, and imprisonment, and 
death, by retiring before His enemies, avoiding dangerous regions, 
and keeping His movements secret, wnfil the hour for His 
Passion had come; so also, as part of this method, He had been 
very reserved about His own personality, and had avoided pre- 
mature disclosure of the fact that He was the Messiah. When 
Peter showed that he had become possessed of this truth, our Lord 
charged all the Apostles that they should ‘tell no man that He 
was the Christ’ (xvi. 20); and He commanded those who had 
seen the Transfiguration, that they were ‘to tell the vision to no 
man,’ till He was risen from the dead (xvii. 9).2 But now there 


1¢The Power’ (ἡ δύναμι) is an equivalent for ‘God’; Dalman, Words, 
Ρ. 201: ‘the right hand of Omnipotence’ (Salmon) expresses the meaning. 
The difficult ἀπ᾽ ἄρτι is not found in the LXX. In the N.T. it occurs only in 
Mt., Jn., and Rev. 

3 Nevertheless, He did not disclaim this position when it was, by im- 
plication, forced upon Him. He did not deny that He had the Divine pre- 
rogative of forgiving sins (ix. 4-6). He justified His command to carry a bed 
on the Sabbath by a declaration that was said to be a claim to be equal with 
God (Jn. v. 17, 18), and He did not deny that it was such aclaim. When 
the Jews challenged Him to say whether He was the Christ, He declared that 
He and the Father were one (Jn. x. 24-30). To Pilate He explains in what 
sense He is a King: in a sense which in no way affects the sovereignty of 


380 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVI. 65, 66 


is no need of reserve any longer. He is challenged by the 
highest religious authority in the Supreme Council of the nation 
to declare Himself; and for the first time He declares publicly 
that He whom they are determined to condemn to death is the 
Messiah. His first Coming, His earthly mission, as a Preacher 
of Repentance and a Prophet of the Kingdom, is over. His 
next Coming will be on the clouds of heaven as Judge. 

The high priest recognizes in this utterance a reference to 
Dan. vii. 13, and he interprets ‘the Son of Man’ as meaning the 
same as ‘the Son of God,’ but, no doubt, without the right fulness 
of meaning. We need not suppose that he was acting a part and 
pretending to be horror-stricken. He was probably shocked at 
what he regarded as a blasphemous claim, and he expressed his 
feeling by making a protest in the usual way. Rending one’s 
clothes was a very ancient way of expressing distress, and it is 
frequent in the O.T., especially in the historical books, but also 
in Isaiah (xxxvii. 1), Jeremiah (xxxvi. 24), and Joel (ii. 13). The 
common phrase is ‘to rend the outer garments’ (διαρηγνύναι τὰ 
ἱμάτια), Which Mt. has here. Not everybody wore inner garments 
or shirts (χιτῶνες), or, if they did, wore more than one (Mk. vi. 9 ; 
Mt. x. 10). But here Mk. states that the high priest rent his 
inner garments (διαρήξας τοὺς χιτῶνας) ; and this is probably 
correct. Mt. has employed the usual, but, in this case, less 
accurate phrase (Epistle of Jeremy 31). The high priest was not 
allowed to rend his clothes for his own sorrows (Lev. xxi. ro), 
but he was expected to do so when a gross offence against God 
took place in his presence. His being shocked at our Lord’s 
utterance, while he felt no scruples about the manner in which 
he was compassing His death, is very characteristic. 

But the Lord’s utterance was a great relief to him and to the 
Sanhedrin generally. Without any further trouble with unsatis- 
factory witnesses, they had now got all that they needed. Jesus 
had been guilty of blasphemy, and was worthy of death (Lev. 
xxiv. 16; 1 Kings xxi. 10, 13). Mk. says that they a// condemned 
Him; and Mt. omits the ‘all,’ either as superfluous, or perhaps 


Tiberius. To the Sanhedrin He gives no explanation as to the sense in which 
He is the Son of God. They had got the right sense; a sense which, if 
untrue, was blasphemy. See Camb. S21. Ess. p. 188. 

1 The whole of the proceedings up to this point had been illegal for want 
of witnesses. The witnesses ought to have arrested Him, and to have arrested 
Him before sunset; and, as the charge was for a capital offence, arrest at 
Passover time was unlawful (Brodrick, pp. 30, 31, 65). The question, τί ἔτι 
χρείαν ἔχομεν μαρτ., is in all three: it expresses the relief of Caiaphas at 
getting free from a great difficulty. Comp. Plat. Ref. τ. xiii. 340 A: καὶ τί, 
ἔφη, δεῖται μάρτυρος ; αὐτὸς yap ὁ Θρασύμαχος ὁμολογεῖ. The apocryphal 
addition to xv. 4 which is found in Ephraem is here of interest: ‘Sand he 
who blasphemes God, let him be crucified.” Nestle, p. 252. For ‘ guilty of 
death’ see Pirge Aboth, iil. 11, 12. 


XXVI. 67-69] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 381 


as an exaggeration. Joseph of Arimathea had not consented 
(Lk. xxiii. 51), and Nicodemus is not likely to have done so 
(Jn. vii. 50, xix. 39); but probably they were not present. It is 
hardly likely that such unsatisfactory members would be sum- 
moned to this exceptional meeting in the middle of the night. 

Such a meeting was illegal, and no business transacted at it 
was valid. Probably all that was important was repeated at the 
meeting after sunrise. But, although urgency might be pleaded 
for such a sitting, and though their conduct in holding it is not 
surprising, yet their treatment of the Prisoner after they had 
condemned Him is amazing in its indecency and brutality. Mk. 
says that ‘some began to spit on Him’; he limits the outrage to 
a part of the Sanhedrin, perhaps to a few. And when one asks 
whether the ‘some’ who did this are not the servants who 
guarded the Prisoner, this hypothesis seems to be excluded by 
the special mention of the behaviour of the servants afterwards : 
they ‘received Him with blows.’ Mt. omits Mk.’s ‘some,’ as he 
previously omitted the ‘all’; and his condensed account reads 
as if the whole Sanhedrin were guilty of the outrage. Lk. says 
that this pitiful persecution of our Lord was committed by the 
men that held Jesus in custody, and affarently before the 
meeting of the Sanhedrin; but as he omits the nocturnal meet- 
ing, the latter point is uncertain. It is possible that before the 
nocturnal meeting Christ was insulted by His captors, and again 
after it, and that on the latter occasion some members of the 
Sanhedrin took the lead in insulting Him. That His captors 
should begin again after He had been condemned is probable 
enough. Mt. abbreviates to such an extent as to be scarcely 
intelligible. ‘Prophesy to us, who is it that smote Thee?’ has 
little meaning, when the fact that they had thrown a covering 
over His head is left out. Did Mt. think that covering His face 
was inconsistent with spitting in it ?? 


XXXVI. 69-75. Peter thrice denies his Master. 


This narrative is in all four Gospels, and their substantial 
agreement, combined with serious divergence about details, is 
very instructive. As elsewhere, Mt. is plainly dependent upon 
Mk., while Lk. and Jn. are independent. We have three authori- 
ties, not four ; and there may be connexion between Lk. and Mk. 
See DCG., art. ‘ Denial.’ 

Mt., like Mk., now returns to Peter, who from a distance had 


1 Ὁ, Syr-Sin. and some Lat. texts omit the covering of the face in Mk. 
xiv. 65. It is not likely that this blindfolding had any connexion with the 
Roman practice of covering the head of the condemned (Cic. Pro Kadirio, 
iv. 13, Vv. 16). These mockers are Jews. 


382 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XXVI. 69-75 


followed those who arrested Jesus, and had gained admission into 
the courtyard within the high priest’s palace (58; Jn. xviii. 15, 16). 
He wanted ‘to see the end,’ the result of the trial. He had 
shown courage at the arrest of his Master; and, after his attack | 
on the high priest’s servant, it was a courageous thing to enter 
the high priest’s dwelling. But he was quite unprepared {or the 
kind of trial that awaited him. Had he been arrested by the 
Temple-guard and taken before the high priest, he would probably 
have answered with courage and truthfulness. But the sudden 
question of the porteress who let him in surprised him into a lie. 
Perhaps he was more afraid of being turned out than of being 
arrested and punished: or he may have thought that he was 
justified in misleading any one who was in the service of the high 
priest. His not taking refuge in flight, even after being twice 
challenged, is some evidence that he was still determined at all 
risks ‘to see the end.’ 

No two Gospels agree as to the wording of the first challenge, 
and all four differ considerably as to Peter’s reply to it, Mt. being 
closest to Mk. whom he abbreviates.!_ Mk. says that it was the 
same woman (the porteress) who gave the second challenge as 
gave the first; Mt. that it was another woman; LK. that it was 
aman; Jn. that it was a group of people. In Mt. Jesus is called 
a ‘Galilean’ in the first challenge, a ‘ Nazorean’ in the second ; 
in Mk. it is ‘Nazarene’ in the first challenge. The Synoptists 
agree that at the third challenge Peter was recognized as a 
‘Galilean’ (Mt., Lk.), which his dialect betrayed (Mt.); Dalman, 
Words, p. 80. But Mt. and Mk. attribute the third challenge to 
‘those that stood by,’ while Lk. says that it was ‘another man’ 
(ἄλλος τις). Jn. is here very different: a kinsman of the servant 
whose ear Peter had cut off says, ‘Did I not see thee in the 
garden with Him?’ Mt. records swearing at the second and 
third denials, Mk. at the third only, Lk. and Jn. not at all. Lk. 
alone mentions the Lord’s turning and looking upon Peter; but 
there is no reason for doubting either the fact or the effect of the 
look. Jn. omits the subsequent weeping. 

Both as regards the denying and the weeping (ἠρνήσατο, 
ἔκλαυσεν), Mt., as often, avoids the imperfects of Mk. (ἠρνεῖτο, 
ἔκλαιεν). But here the change is a real loss. ‘He kept on 
denying’ and ‘he continued weeping’ are much more graphic, 
and are possibly more in accordance with fact. Of the first 
denial, which was probably a single utterance, all three have the 
aorist, ‘he denied’ (ἠρνήσατο) : the second challenge made him 
more voluble. Both Mt. and Lk. add ‘bitterly’ to ‘he wept’; but 
the simple ‘he continued weeping’ of Mk. (who has Peter behind 


1In some texts of the Testaments we have the same words: οὐκ oida τί 
λέγεις (Joseph xiii. 2). 


XXVI. 75] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 383 


him) is more impressive. Peter’s going out (Mt., Lk.) is an 
incidental confirmation of the Lord’s searching look. Peter 
could not bear to meet that again. 

The guilt of Peter’s denials, which has perhaps sometimes 
been exaggerated, must be measured by the quickness and 
completeness of his repentance. In his declaration that he was 
ready to go with his Master to prison and to death, he was no 
vainglorious braggart or insincere sycophant. His courage in 
the garden and in following into the high priest’s palace is proof 
of that. But he found out that it may be more difficult to act 
rightly in small things than to brace oneself for an act of heroism. 
And he also found out that one false step commonly involves 
other steps in the same direction. This is specially the case with 
falsehood. A lie seldom can stand alone: it needs to be backed 
up by subsequent acts and words of deceit. Peter’s descent, 
especially as we have it in the Gospel of his own ‘interpreter,’ 
is quite normal. He begins with a single lie (ἠρνήσατο). The 
next time he kept on repeating his lie (ἠρνεῖτο). Finally, he 
invokes a curse on himself if his denial is false, and he swears 
that it is true. There is no need to suppose that “ Peter’s faith 
in his Master’s supernatural power had been rudely shaken when 
he saw Him led away an unresisting captive.” Indeed, if we 
believe either Lk.’s account of the healing of Malchus’ ear, or 
Jn.’s of the captors going backward and falling to the ground, 
what had taken place in the garden would be likely to strengthen 
Peter’s faith rather than to shake it. Peter’s error consisted in 
two things: in believing that his own warm feelings towards his 
Master could be relied upon to carry him through all temptations; 
and, secondly, in resorting to falsehood as a means of avoiding 
expulsion or arrest. And the falsehood was of a glaring charac- 
ter,—denying that he had any knowledge of Him whose most 
trusted. disciple he had long been, and whom he himself had 
recognized as ‘the Messiah’ and ‘the Son of the living God’ 
(xvi. 16). 

It has been remarked that ‘‘the women introduced on this occasion are 
the only women that are mentioned as taking part with the enemies of our 
Lord : and even they are not concerned in bringing about His condemnation, 
nor any further than to detect S. Peter. It is remarkable that no woman is 
mentioned throughout as speaking against our Lord in His life, or having a 
share in His death” (Isaac Williams, 726 Passion, p. 107). ‘‘Itis a matter 
worthy of the deepest consideration, that not only 15 so very little told us of 
the Saints of God, but what is recorded is for the most part to their prejudice. 
And this is the case even with regard to those who approached most nearly to 
the Person of our blessed Lord. . . . Indeed we may humbly venture to 
think that this melancholy failure in one so eminent and favoured was per- 
mitted to occur to afford us encouragement and hope in similar derelictions 
and temptations, And that as our Lord could not afford us an instance of 
human infirmity in Himself, He has given it to us in the person of the most 


384 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ S. MATTHEW [XXVII.1,2 


exalted of His pastors: that all may fear, and none may presume, and all 
may hope” (zézd. pp. 112, 113). 

Characteristic expressions in ch, xxvi.: τότε (3, 14, 31, 36, 38, 45, 50, 52, 
56, 65, 67, 74), συνάγειν (3, 57), λεγόμενος (3, 14, 36), προσέρχεσθαι (7, 17, 
49, 50, 60 d2s, 69, 73), πορεύεσθαι (14), ἀπὸ τότε (16), σφόδρα (22), ἐκεῖ (36, 71), 
γενηθήτω (42), ἰδού (45, 46, 47), καὶ ἰδού (51), ὥρα ἐκείνη (55), ἵνα πληρωθῶσιν 
(56), ὕστερον (60), τί ὑμῖν doxet ; (66), ὀμνύειν (74). Peculiar: ἑταῖρος (50), 
συντάσσειν (19), ψευδομαρτυρία (59 and xv. 19 only), ῥαπίζειν (67 and v. 39 
only) ; peculiar to this chapter: βαρύτιμος (7), ὁ δεῖνα (18), καταθεματίζειν (74). 

If the reading of D, d in ver. 15 could be regarded as genuine, we should 
have to add στατήρ (xvii. 27) to the words that are peculiar, for that reading 
gives ‘thirty s¢a¢ervs’ as the sum paid to Judas. The reading is probably 
deduced from ἔστησαν, ‘they weighed to him thirty pieces of silver,’ and the 
deduction may becorrect. See on xvii. 27, and DCG., art. ‘ Money,’ ii. p. 200; 
DB., art. ‘Money,’ iii. p. 428: “‘ The thirty pieces of silver (τριάκοντα ἀργύρια) 
are more likely to have been thirty Phenician tetradrachms (120 denarii= 
44, 16s.) from the Temple treasury (cf. Zec. xi. 12 in LXX) than thirty 
denarius-drachms,” which would have been a very unattractive sum. Thirty 
tetradrachms would be about twenty weeks’ wages for a labouring man, and 
it was the average price of a slave. 

Note the aorists (39, 60, 67, 72, 75), where Mk. (xiv. 35, 55, 65 [?], 70, 
72) has the imperfect. 


XXVII. 1-10. Zhe Messiah condemned to Death. 
The Remorse and Suicide of the Traitor. 


From different points of view the nocturnal meeting or the 
morning meeting of the Sanhedrin may be regarded as the more 
important. At the nocturnal meeting everything was practically 
decided; therefore Mt. and Mk. give it the first place. The 
morning meeting was the only valid meeting; therefore Lk. 
takes notice of no other, while Mt. and Mk. dismiss it in a few 
lines. Lk. assigns to it incidents which the others assign to the 
earlier meeting. Mt. mentions only chief priests and elders, 
whom he again calls ‘elders of the people’ (xxi. 23, XxVi. 3, 47). 
Mt. adds ‘Scribes’ and ‘the whole Sanhedrin,’ which Mt. 
naturally omits as superfluous.!_ Lk. sums up all as ‘the whole 
company of them ’ (ἅπαν τὸ πλῆθος αὐτῶν). 

The matter was urgent, for it was necessary that Jesus should 
be disposed of before the killing of the Paschal lambs that after- 
noon. Jerusalem was full of pilgrims, many of whom were well 
disposed towards Him. Hence it was thought expedient to bind 
Him again. He had been bound in the garden, and Annas had 
sent Him bound to Caiaphas (Jn. xviii. 12, 24); but during the 
long hearing before him He had probably been freed from His 
bonds. As soon as sentence of death was pronounced at a 


1 συμβούλιον ἔλαβον (Mt.) probably=cupuBovroy ποιήσαντες (Mk.) συμ- 
βούλιον being a late equivalent for comszlzzm. ‘Held a consultation’ is 
probably right: συμβ. ἔλαβον is peculiar to Mt. (xii. 14, xxii. 15, xxvii. 17, 
7, Xxviil, 12). Deissmann, Bzble Studies, p. 238. 


XXVII. 2-8] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 385 


lawful hour, it was necessary to induce Pilate the Procurator! 
to execute it, and speedily ; but he required to be informed of 
the nature of the offence. It is remarkable that the Gospels, 
while not hiding the weakness and injustice of Pilate, do not 
give such a black impression of his character as we derive from 
Josephus and Philo. There does not seem to have been any 
inclination in the first Christians to exaggerate the misdeeds of 
either Judas or Pilate. They are not represented as monsters 
of wickedness any more than the Apostles are depicted as models 
of saintliness and wisdom. Renan goes so far as to maintain 
that “‘all the Acts of Pilate that are known to us show him to 
have been a good administrator” (Vie de Jésus, p. 401). At 
any rate he shines in comparison with the Jewish hierarchy, but 
for whom he would have released Jesus as innocent. 

It was probably from local tradition, written or unwritten, 
that Mt. derived his account of the death of Judas. It differs 
widely from that given by Lk. in Acts (i. 18-20). Mt. says that 
the traitor, in remorse, returned the blood-money,? and com- 
mitted suicide by hanging, the place of his death not being 
stated. Then the chief priests buy the Potter’s Field with the 
money, which was afterwards known as the ‘Field of Blood’ 
(ἀγρὸς αἵματος), as being bought with blood-money, and was used 
as a burial-ground for foreigners.’ Lk. says that Judas retained 
the money, and bought a field with it, in which (so the narrative 
implies) he fell on his face (πρηνὴς γενόμενος) and ruptured his 
abdomen fatally, and, from his violent death there, the place 
was known as the ‘Field of Blood’ (χωρίον αἵματος). Nothing 
is said in Acts about suicide, or hanging, or the Potter, or the 
chief priests, or the subsequent cemetery. The three points 
common to the two narratives are (1) that the traitor came to a 
violent end, (2) that a field was bought with the blood-money, 
and (3) that it was subsequently known as the ‘ Field of Blood.’ 
It is possible that ‘Akeldama,’ which was interpreted as ‘ Field 
of Blood,’ is a corruption of an Aramaic expression for ‘ cemetery.’ 
If so, the connexion of the field, in the one case, with the 


1Mt. calls him ‘the governor’ (τῷ ἡγεμόνι), which is a vague word 
capable of being applied to any ruler, from the Emperor downwards, and a 
favourite word with him: ii. 6, x. 18, xxvii. 2-27, xxviii. 14. For biblio- 
graphy see Hastings’ DZ. and DCG., art. ‘ Pilate.’ 

3 That Judas is said to have thrown the money into the ναός, into which 
priests alone entered, is surprising, even if the full force be given to ῥίψας, 
which, however, has no such force in xv. 30. Josephus uses vadés of the 
collective Temple-buildings. Perhaps the source used by Mt. did so. 

3 The expression, ‘ price of blood’ (τιμὴ αἵματος), is found in the Testa- 
ments, where eight of the sons of Jacob refuse to spend the money paid for 
Joseph upon food, but buy sandals with it, ar ‘We will not eat it, 
for it is the price of our brother’s blood, but we will assuredly tread it under 
foot” (Zebulon iii. 3). 


25 


386 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVIL. 3-8 


blood of Christ, in the other, with the blood of Judas, falls away as 
divergent explanations of a wrong name; while, on the other hand, 
Mt.’s statement about the cemetery for strangers is confirmed. 

As regards the other details it is impossible to determine 
whether Mt. or Lk. is nearer the truth. But Mt. wrote earlier, 
and is probably reproducing earlier tradition. ‘The story in Lk., 
with the dreadful detail about bursting asunder, looks as if 
tradition had added something to the horror of the traitor’s 
death; and the story in Papias makes the death still more 
horrible and disgusting. It is rash to brush away all three 
stories as equally false, or to suppose that Mt. and Lk. give us 
mere modifications of the story in Papias. There is good reason 
for believing that the end of Judas was violent and was regarded 
as appropriate, but we cannot recover the details. Suicide by 
hanging may come from the death of Ahithophel (2 Sam. xvii. 23), 
which would be regarded as parallel. See Hastings’ DB., art. 
‘Judas Iscariot,’ p. 798; DCG., artt. ‘Akeldama’ and ‘Judas 
Iscariot,’ p. 911; and, for harmonizing attempts, Knowling on 
Acts i. 18, 19; Edersheim, Zzfe and Times, il. p. 575. 

Mt. takes no notice of the parallel with Ahithophel, but he 
sees in these incidents another fulfilment of prophecy. His 
usual formula is that an event took place that prophecy might 
be fulfilled (ἵνα πληρωθῇ or ὅπως πληρωθῇ). But here, as in 
ii. 17, he says, ‘Then was fulfilled’ (rére ἐπληρώθη). The pro- 
phecy, though attributed to Jeremiah, is evidently Zech. xi. 13 ; 
but it may be influenced by Jer. xviii. 2 and xix. 1, 11, and 
hence be quoted as from Jeremiah. It is a loose rendering of 
the Hebrew of Zech xi. 13, which differs from the Septuagint. 
The original passage presents considerable difficulties, and they 
are augmented by the quotation (probably from memory) here. 
Apparently Mt. thinks that the Prophet’s action in throwing his 
despised wages to the potter foreshadowed the chief priests’ 
action in using the despised wages of Judas for buying the 
Potter’s Field. See Hastings’ DB. and DCG., art. ‘ Potter,’ 
and Jerome’s letter to Pammachius (222. lvii. 7). Mt. possibly 
inserts the episode of Judas with a view to a triplet: Judas, Pilate, 
and the people (4, 24, 25) are three shedders of innocent blood. 


The reading ‘Jeremiah’ is firmly established (δ ἃ ΒΟ Ὁ (?) LXTATI, Vulg. 
Copt. Arm. Aeth.) ; ‘ Zachariah’ is an obvious correction. A few texts omit. 


1 Other suggestions are that this is a quotation from a lost writing of 
Jeremiah’s, or from a traditional saying of his; or that the Jews deleted the 
passage from Jeremiah’s writings (Eus. Dem. £v. x. 4); or that the latter 
part of Zechariah was originally anonymous, and was sometimes attributed to 
Jeremiah; or that the prophetical books were sometimes in rolls, one of 
which began with Jeremiah but contained Zechariah also, and that the 
contents of that roll were cited as ‘Jeremiah.’ A slip of memory is much 
more probable. 


XXVII. 11] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 387 


XXVII. 11-26. The Trial of the Messiah before the 
j Heathen Procurator. 


After the digression respecting the death of Judas, Mt. returns 
to Mk. xv. 2, and in order to resume the narrative he inserts 
“ΝΟΥ͂ Jesus stood before the governor.” Pilate had come up 
from Czesarea to keep order at the Passover. We learn from 
Jn. that his interview with the hierarchy took place outside his 
residence, because these scrupulous murderers did not wish to 
be polluted by entering a pagan house (xviii. 28). Lk. tells us 
that they accused Jesus, not of blasphemy (for which the San- 
hedrin had condemned him to death, but which would have 
been no capital offence in Pilate’s eyes), but of sedition, of 
forbidding to give tribute to Cesar, and of claiming to be King 
(xxiii. 2). Pilate had probably heard of the triumphal entry, and 
therefore this last charge would seem to be true. From his 
point of view it was the most serious of the charges. But now 
that he sees the Accused, the charge surprises him; ‘Art Zhou 
the King of the Jews?’ (σὺ εἶ ὃ βασιλεὺς τῶν ᾿Ιουδαίων ;)—with 
emphasis on the pronoun. Certainly, He looked very unlike 
a man who had claimed sovereign power. Pilate’s expression is 
the same in all three Gospels, and it is exactly what a Roman 
official would be likely to use. If Jesus claimed to be a King, 
it would be King of the Jews that He aspired to be. Comp. 
the title on the cross (37). But, when the Sanhedrists mock 
Him on the cross, they call Him ‘the King of /srael’ (42; Mk. 
xv. 32; comp. Jn. 1. 49, xii. 13). 

We are uncertain whether there is any shade of difference 
between ‘Thou sayest’ (σὺ λέγεις) and ‘Thou saidst’ or ‘Thou 
hast said’ (σὺ εἶπας, xxvi. 64). Jn. gives the answer as ‘Thou 
sayest that I am a King.’ The answer is probably a modified 
affirmative: ‘I do not deny it; but it is thou who sayest it, not 
I.’ It is manifestly no denial of the matter, and Pilate would 
understand the reply as an admission that He was a King. In 
that case we require the supplementary narrative of Jn., in which 
Jesus explains to Pilate that His Kingdom is not of this world 
(xviil. 36). Otherwise the trial would have ended here. The 
hierarchy had charged Jesus with claiming to be King, and Jesus 
Himself did not deny the charge. That would have been 
decisive. But Pilate saw that Jesus was no rival to ‘Tiberius, 
and that there was avimus in His accusers. His private con- 
versation with Him convinced him that He was a harmless, 
innocent man, and he tries to set Him free without causing a 
disturbance. But he has not decision enough to act as Claudius 
Lysias did in the case of S. Paul ;—send the object of Jewish 
hatred away to Ceesarea under a strong guard. He hopes to be 


388 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [XXVII. 12-17 


able to satisfy the fanatical Sanhedrists without sacrificing Jesus. 
But his statement to them, that he finds no fault in Him (Lk. 
xxiil. 4), only provokes a reiteration of false charges, about which 
he questions the Prisoner. 

The contrast between our Lord’s behaviour to Pilate in 
private, and His behaviour when confronted in public with the 
accusations of the hierarchy, is very marked. He recognizes the 
right of the Procurator to question Him about the accusations 
laid against Him, and answers freely. He does not recognize 
the right of the Sanhedrists to bring these accusations ; they are 
false, and the accusers know that they are false.t Pilate is 
naturally astonished at this behaviour. If He answered before, 
why will He not answer now? Mt. strengthens the language 
with regard to both Christ’s silence and Pilate’s amazement. 
‘He gave him no answer, ot even to one word; insomuch that 
the governor marvelled greatly’ (λίαν). 

Respecting the custom of releasing a prisoner at the Passover 
we know no more than is told us in the Gospels. It may easily 
have been a Jewish custom, which the Romans, with their 
customary tolerance of national institutions that were not 
dangerous to their rule, continued.? Pilate’s evident hope that 
the release of Jesus would be preferred to that of Barabbas, 
indicates that Barabbas was just a common criminal. If he 
had claimed to be the Messiah, or had been in arms against the 
Romans, he would probably have been too popular and too 
dangerous to be proposed for release. The sedition (στάσις) 
and bloodshed for which he was imprisoned (Lk. xxiii. 19) was 
probably a mere plundering raid, and it is not said that he was 
the leader of it. ‘He used to release to them’ in Mk. would 
strictly mean that he used to release to the chief priests, for they 
are the persons last mentioned. Mt. avoids the possibility of 
this interpretation by saying he ‘was wont to release Zo the 
multitude, and he calls Barabbas ‘a notable prisoner’ (δέσμιον 
ἐπίσημον). Vilate would naturally select a prisoner whose case 
was well known, notorious as a peril to society. 

The Gospels differ as to the exact way in which the choice 
came to be made between Jesus and Barabbas. According to 
Mt., it is Pilate who proposes the alternative. Which will they 
have? Barabbas, or Jesus which is called Christ? Mk. seems 
to mean that the multitudes came to ask for Barabbas, and that 
Pilate proposed ‘the King of the Jews’ instead. Lk. does not 


1 Just in this one place (12) Mt. uses the classical middle form ἀπεκρίνατο 
(comp. Mk. xiv. 61; Lk. xxiii. 9) ; but he immediately (14) returns to the 
usual passive form ἀπεκρίθη. Note his favourite ‘ Then’ (13). 

2 Pilate says: ‘ Ye have a custom’ (Jn. xviii. 39). But κατὰ ἑορτήν (15 
Mk. xv. 6) cannot mean ‘at ¢haé feast’ (AV.); it means ‘at festival-time.’ 


ε 


co 


XXVII. 18,19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 380 


mention the custom, for xxiii. 17 is an interpolation(A BK LT Π 
and other authorities omit); but he says that, when Pilate pro- 
posed to release Jesus, the people cried out, ‘Away with this 
man, and release unto us Barabbas.’ In Jn., Pilate reminds the 
Jews of the custom, and proposes that the King of the Jews be 
released in accordance with it. These divergencies are of small 
moment. All four Gospels agree as to the momentous fact that 
the Jews preferred a dangerous criminal to the Messiah, whom 
they thereby handed over to a shameful and cruel death. 


There is strong probability that Barabbas is Bar-Abba, ‘son of Abba’ 
or ‘son of a father.’ Samuel Bar-Abba and Nathan Bar-Abba are instances 
which confirm this. Whether Abba was used as a proper name as early 
as A.D. 29 is disputed. Ewald and Renan suggest Bar-Rabban, ‘Son of a 
Rabbi.’ For this reading there is little authority, but Jerome says that in the 
Gospel of the Hebrews this robber had a name which meant //ius magistré 
corum, and this points to Bar-Rabban as the reading there. If it had been 
usual to address a Rabbi as ‘Father’ (see on xxiii. 9), there would not be 
much difference between Bar-Abba and Bar-Rabban. The usual derivation 
affords an obvious contrast between ‘the Son of the Father’ who was rejected 
and ‘a son of a father’ who was preferred to Him. 

The remarkable reading in vv. 16 and 17, which inserts ‘Jesus’ before 
‘ Barabbas,’ turns Barabbas into a patronymic, and Jesus Barabbas is parallel 
to Simon Bar-jona. Origen seems to be almost inclined to adopt this reading. 
It occurs in a very few cursives, Syr-Sin. and Arm., and is accepted by Allen, 
Burkitt, Ewald, Merx, and Zahn. Pilate’s alternative is thus made very 
pointed: ‘Whom will ye that I release to you? Jesus Barabbas, or Jesus 
which is called Christ?’ And there is something in Origen’s suggestion that 
the ‘ Jesus’ may have been omitted in many copies because it seemed shocking 
that such a name should be borne by a murderer. But, on the other hand, 
there is the evidence of nearly all Greek MSS., including the best, and of 
nearly all Versions. There is also the fact that even the few witnesses which 
prefix ‘Jesus’ to Barabbas in vv. 16, 17, do not do so in vv. 20, 21, 26, 
where we should expect to find it repeated. There is also the fact that no 
trace of any such reading is found in any text of Mk. or Lk. or Jn. The 
reading is rejected by the large majority of editors, including WH., who say 
that ‘‘it cannot be right” (Appendix, p. 20). See also DCG., art. ‘Bar- . 
abbas’; Burkitt, Evangelion da-Mepharreshe, ii. pp. 192, 277. 


The incident about Pilate’s wife (19) perhaps comes from 
the same source as the account of the death of Judas. Legend 
gives her the name of Procla, which appears in one MS. of the 
Gospel of Nicodemus, i. 2. In the Greek Church she is 
canonized. ‘While he was sitting on the judgment-seat’ (Acts 
Xii. 21, Xviil. 12, 16, 17, xxv. 6, 10, 17; Rom. xiv. 10; 2 Cor. 
v. 10)! suggests that Pilate was waiting until the people had 
decided which prisoner they would release; comp. xxiv. 3. 


1In the Septuagint βῆμα is used of a pulpit or platform (Neh. viii. 43 
2 Mac. xiii. 26). On the question of Roman governors being accompanied 
in the provinces by their wives see Tac. Avn. iii. 33-35. On the form of 
the wife’s message (19) and of the people’s reply (25) see J. H. Moulton, 
Gr. of Δ'. 7. Gr. i, p. 183. 


390 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXVII. 19-23 


His wife would naturally not come into court herself, but send 
a messenger; and her message is introduced here to explain 
why Pilate, after giving the people their choice, still tried to 
release ‘that righteous Man,’ whom they had rejected. In the 
Gospel of Nicodemus, Pilate tells the people of his wife’s message, 
and they reply: ‘ Did we not tell thee that He was a sorcerer? 
Behold He has sent a dream to thy wife.” 

“This intensely interesting paragraph (25-27) is the only 
explanation which the Gospels give of Pilate’s extraordinary 
conduct in hesitating to sign the death-warrant. That a man 
in his position should have troubled himself in behalf of a poor 
and friendless convict demands some reason, and that which 
is here given accords perfectly with the age” (Wright, Syzopsvs, 
p. 263). The explanation is adequate and credible; but even 
without it the conduct of Pilate would be intelligible. He had 
a Roman’s contempt for Jewish laws and customs, and he 
had a Roman official’s regard for elementary justice. ‘He 
knew that for envy the chief priests had delivered Him up’ 
(18; Mk. xv. to), and he had been greatly impressed by Christ’s 
bearing before him both in public and in private (Jn. xviii. 38, 
xix. 12). All this would account for the Procurator’s behaviour ; 
but the message of his wife makes it still more credible. 

In ver. 20, in mentioning who it was that induced the crowd 
to ask for Barabbas, Mt. adds what asking for Barabbas involved, 
viz. destroying Jesus: he also, as in ver. 12, adds the elders, 
where Mk. mentions only the chief priests. This ‘stirring up 
the multitude’ took some time, during which Pilate would be 
aware of what was going on. He had recognized the hypocrisy 
of the hierarchy ; while pretending to be jealous for Czesar and 
his government, they were really jealous of a Teacher who was 
more successful and influential than themselves. But at last 
he ‘answered’ the sounds that reached him and put the question. 
The reply did not convince him that popular feeling was against 
Jesus. The crowd might be induced to vote for Barabbas, and 
yet not be unfavourable to the Galilean. What was he to do 
with Him? This time there was no deliberation. The answer 
came back at once, and Mt. says that it was unanimous (λέγουσιν 
πάντες): ‘Let Him be crucified.’ Pilate, influenced by a 
Roman’s sense of justice, by his interest in the Prisoner, and 
by his wife’s dream, still tries to make a stand. ‘Let Him be 
crucified? But, for what? What has He done to deserve 
that?’ To that question he gets no answer. What does a 
mob care about such things? It knows what it likes and dis- 
likes, and that is enough. Its only reply is to repeat still more 
urgently (περισσῶς) what it desires: ‘Let Him be crucified.’ 

Once more Mt. inserts into the narrative something derived 


XXVII. 24-26] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 5301 


from local tradition (24). Washing the hands is a natural 
symbolism for expressing freedom from σα} We find it 
among the Jews (Deut. xxi. 6; Ps. xxvi. 6, Ixxiii. τ; Jos. rv. 
viii. 16) and the Gentiles (Virg. Aen. ii. 719 ; Ovid, /uastr, ii. 45). 
The Gospel of Nicodemus says that Pilate washed his hands 
‘in the face of the sun,’ πρὸς τὸν ἥλιον (i. 9). It was not unusual 
for a judge, in pronouncing sentence of death, to protest that 
he incurred no guilt by causing life to be taken (Afost. Const. 
ii. 52). But-it is not likely that Pilate said ‘I am innocent 
of the blood of this righteous man.’ The ‘righteous’ looks 
back to his wife’s message (19), and may be a later insertion 
to agree with that; and ‘see ye to it’ seems to look back to 
the reply of the hierarchy to Judas. But, whether or no Mt. 
wrote it, it is not likely that Pilate said it. A Roman Procurator 
would not confess to a Jewish mob that out of fear of them he 
was putting an innocent man to death. 


The evidence for ‘the blood of this righteous man’ (δὲ LT'II, Syr-Pesh. 
Vulg.) is not so weighty as for ‘this blood’ (B Ὁ, Syr-Sin.). The Old 
Latin is divided, a and b being for the shorter reading. Some texts have 
‘this righteous man’ without ‘the blood’ (A A, Copt. Syr-Har.). 

The Testaments have a remarkable parallel: “51 am innocent of your 
ungodliness and transgression which ye shall commit”; ἀθῴός εἰμι τῆς 
ἀσεβξίας ὑμῶν καὶ παραβάσεως ἣν ποιήσετε (Levi x. 2). 


‘See ye to it,’ lit. ‘Ye shall see to it’ (ὑμεῖς ὄψεσθε), is 
similar to the reply of the Sanhedrists to Judas (4): ‘See thou 
to it’ (od ὄψῃ). Mt. once more states that the answer of the 
multitude to Pilate was unanimous. ‘A// the people answered 
and said, His blood be on us and on our children.’ It is perhaps 
to this that the Gospel of Peter refers. The fragment begins 
with the words: ‘But of the Jews no one washed his hands, 
nor yet Herod, nor even one of His judges (the Sanhedrists) ; 
and since they did not choose to wash, Pilate stood up.” The 
writer desires to contrast the hard-heartedness of the Jewish 
judges with the scruples of a heathen judge. The point of the 
tradition which Mt. preserves is that all the Jews who were 
present accepted the responsibility. The crime of murdering 
the Messiah is to this extent a national one. 

In Mt. and Mk. the scourging is part of the capital punish- 
ment. It was not unusual to scourge a criminal before crucifying 
him. In Jn. the scourging is Pilate’s final attempt to save 
Jesus from crucifixion; he hopes that this terrible infliction 
will satisfy the Jews. Lk does not mention the scourging, 
except in the prediction of what will take place (xviii. 33). 
From what follows, both in Mt. and Mk., it is evident that 


1 Here the verb for ‘ washed’ is a strong compound (ἀπενίψατο). Pilate 
dramatically cleansed his hands with great thoroughness. 


392 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVII. 27-29 


Pilate ‘delivered Jesus’ to the soldiers, to be executed. But 
there is no contradiction between this and Jn. xix. 16, where 
Pilate delivers Him to the chief priests, or Lk. xxiii. 25, where 
he delivers Him to the will of the people. He handed Him 
over to those who.carried out the will of the priests and the 
people. No mention is made of a formal sentence of death 
by the Procurator, and there was no need to pronounce one. 
The Sanhedrin had sentenced Jesus, but it could not execute 
the sentence without Pilate’s help (Jn. xviii. 31), and Pilate at 
last gave this. Christ Himself said that the chief responsibility 
was not with Pilate (Jn. xix. 11). 


XXVIII. 27-31. The Messiah is Mocked by Heathen Soldiers. 


The attempt of the subtle Procurator to play off the people 
against the priests has been a complete failure. The priests 
have made the people as fanatical as themselves and as bitterly 
hostile to Him whom the Procurator has called their King. 
While the centurion and his four soldiers are making prepara- 
tions for the execution, the other soldiers of the Procurator 
amuse themselves by mocking the condemned Prisoner, and 
they invite the rest of the cohort that had come to keep order 
at the Passover to join in the sport. Some of them had taken 
part in arresting Him in the garden, and therefore knew some- 
thing about the case. We may regard ‘the whole cohort’ 
(ὅλην τὴν σπεῖραν) as a colloquial way of speaking. ‘The soldiers 
on duty called in a number of those who were outside to enjoy 
a brutal amusement which throughout the ages has been common 
enough in the case of condemned prisoners.! In the case of 
these Roman soldiers the maltreatment of the Condemned 
would be all the more to their taste, inasmuch as it gave them 
an opportunity of showing their contempt for the Jews. Here 
was ‘the King of the Jews’ to make sport of. 

There is nothing in the Gospels to enable us to identify 
the plant of which the crown of thorns was made. The con- 
jectural identifications do not agree. But we need not doubt 
that the crown (although στέφανος and not διάδημα is used) 
was meant to represent that of a king rather than that of a 
victorious commander. ‘The soldiers were familiar with the 
ceremony of Ave Cesar, and imitated it. Mt. alone mentions 

1 Comp. in the Testaments: ‘‘ They stripped off (ἐξέδυσαν) from Joseph 
his coat when they were selling him, and put upon him the garment of a 
slave” (Zebulon iv. 10). ‘‘ They stripped me of my coat and gave me a 
loin-cloth and scourged me and bade me run” (Senjamin ii. 3). The 
Armenian omits both these passages. Field compares the account in Plutarch 
( Pompey, 24) of the way in which the pirates mocked a prisoner who said that 
he was a Roman. 


XXVII. 30-32] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 303 


that the reed was placed in Christ’s hand as a sceptre before 
it was used for striking Him on the head, and this gives the 
key to Mt.’s arrangement of the details, in which all the mock 
homage comes first, and all the undisguised outrage comes 
afterwards. In Mk. the two kinds of insult are mixed up 
together. The Gospel of Peter, while differing much in details, 
has the same kind of arrangement as Mt. “And they took the 
Lord, and pushed Him at a running pace, and said, Let us 
hustle (σύρωμεν) the Son of God, as we have got Him in our 
power. And they clothed Him with purple and set Him on 
a seat of judgment, saying, Judge righteously, O King of Jsrael. 
And one of them brought a crown of thorns and put it on the 
head of the Lord. And others stood and kept spitting in His 
eyes, and others smote Him on the cheeks. Others pricked 
Him with a reed, and some whipped Him, saying, With this 
honour let us honour the Son of God” (iii.). 

The prediction recorded xx. 19 has had its complete 
fulfilment as regards the first half of it; the fulfilment of the 
second half now follows. ‘They led Him away to crucify 
Him.’ In Mk. the change of tense (ἐνέδυσαν αὐτὸν. .. 
ἐξάγουσιν αὐτόν) indicates a change of meaning in the ‘they.’ 
Those who lead Him forth are not those who mocked Him. 
In Mt. no distinction is made, and this is a loss. 


XXVIII. 32-44. The Crucifixion of the Messiah. 


The behaviour of the soldiers on duty for the execution of 
the Condemned is in marked contrast to that of those who had 
been mocking Him and maltreating Him in their leisure time. 
The outrage and brutality at once cease, and genuine considera- 
tion is shown to one on whom it is their duty to inflict the last 
penalty of the law. It was usual for those who were condemned 
to crucifixion to carry their own crosses to the place of execution, 
and at first our Lord had done so. The soldiers, seeing that this 
was beyond His strength, compelled! Simon the Cyrenian to 
carry it for Him. Then they offered Him drugged wine, in 
order to deaden the agony of crucifixion. There was no 
exceptional brutality in dividing His garments among themselves ; 
they were a customary perquisite. Sitting down to watch Him 
was a necessary duty; they were bound to see that He was not 
rescued,?_ And it was in accordance with custom, and by Pilate’s 


1 For the verb used here (ἠγγάρευσαν) comp. v. 41. The criminal usually 
carried only Ὡς of the cross, either the upright or the cross-beam. 

2 Mt. perhaps inserts the sitting down and watching to explain the casting 
of lots; the soldiers had plenty of time forthis. It is remarkable that he does 
not quote Ps, xxii, 18. 


304 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW [XXVII. 32-34 


order, that they placed above His head the inscription, which 
was intended as an insult to His enemies rather than to Himself, 
‘The King of the Jews.’ There may have been studied derision 
in placing His cross between the crosses of the two robbers ; 
but, if so, this was probably contrived by the hierarchy, who 
had followed their victim to the place of execution (Jn. xix. 21). 

Mt. omits that Simon of Cyrene was ‘coming from the 
country’ (ἐρχόμενον ἀπ᾽ ἀγροῦ), which seems to mean that he was 
coming from work in the field, and this would have been 
unlawful on the first day of the Unleavened Bread. This 
apparent incongruity was perhaps the reason for the omission. 
Mt. also omits that Simon was ‘the father of Alexander and 
Rufus,’ who no doubt were persons well known to some who 
would read Mk. Mt. may not have known Alexander or Rufus, 
and he may have thought their names of no interest; but he 
frequently omits details. Alexander is not to be identified with 
any other Alexander in the N.T., but Rufus may very possibly 
be the Rufus of Rom. xvi. 13 ; see Sanday and Headlam, ad ue. ; 
also DCG., artt. ‘Alexander and Rufus’ and ‘Cyrene.’ This 
Rufus may also be the Rufus of the Epistle of Polycarp (ix.); see 
Lightfoot, ad doc. 

Mt., Mk., and Jn., all give the Greek equivalent of ‘Golgotha’ 
as ‘place of a skull’ or ‘skull-place’ (κρανίου τόπος), and this 
rather clumsy name may have been in use among the Greek- 
speaking Jews. Lk. calls it simply ‘skull’ (Kpaviov) or ‘The 
skull,’ so named, probably, from the shape of the mound or rock. 
That it got its name from the skulls of criminals lying there 
unburied is incredible. The Jews would not have tolerated 
unburied bones; and the name in that case would have been 
‘place of skulls.’ The curious legend which connects the 
place and name with the skull of Adam (whence the skull at the 
foot of the cross in many pictures of the Crucifixion) was known 
to Jerome, and perhaps to Origen.2 We must be content to 
remain in even greater doubt respecting the site of Golgotha 
than respecting the origin of the name. At present we have not 
data for a decisive opinion. See Sanday, Sacred Sites of the 
Gospels, pp. 54, 68-77; DCG., art. ‘Golgotha.’ 

The ‘wine mingled with gall’ (34) is not out of harmony 
with the ‘myrrh’d wine’ (ἐσμυρνισμενον οἶνον) of Mk. ‘Gall’ 
(χολή) is a vague word for drugs with a bitter taste, and the 

1 This second objection holds, even if the skulls are supposed to have been 
buried ; and why ‘skull’ or ‘skulls’ if the doadzes of criminals were buried 
there? Would not ‘bones’ or ‘skeletons’ be more probable? 

2? Some Fathers call it a Jewish tradition; but it is not likely to have 
been pre-Christian : it is, no doubt, Jewish-Christian, to bring the first Adam 
into contact with the Second, that 2b¢ evectus stt medicus, ubi jacebat egrotus 
(Augustine). 


XXVII. 34-38] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 395 


meaning in each Gospel is that the wine was drugged, probably 
with other things besides ‘gall’ and ‘myrrh.’ It seems to have 
been a Jewish custom to give a drink of this kind to those who 
had been condemned by the Sanhedrin to be stoned, and it is 
said that there was a sort of women’s guild in Jerusalem for 
supplying condemned criminals with these anaesthetics (Wetstein 
on Mk.). ‘Give strong drink to him that is ready to perish, and 
wine unto the bitter of soul’ (Prov. xxxi. 6) would apply to this, 
though probably not intended to do so. It is quite possible 
that a recollection of Ps. lxix. 21 made Mt. substitute ‘gall’ for 
‘myrrh,’ and it is probable that such a recollection caused ‘ wine’ 
in some texts to be changed to ‘ vinegar.’ 


* Wine’ (οἶνον) is the reading of SBD K LIT, Vulg. Aegyptt. Arm. Aeth., 
while ‘vinegar’ (ὄξος) is supported by ANITA, Irenwus. Old Latin and 
Syriac texts are divided. Barnabas vii. 5 is probably not a reference to this 
passage, and throws no light on the reading. 


That our Lord tasted the medicated draught is told us by 
Mt. alone; and it is a little remarkable that he should mention 
such a fact, while Mk. does not. Mk. has simply, ‘ He received 
it not’ (οὐκ ἔλαβεν), ‘He refused to take it.’ Had Mk. stated 
that He tasted before refusing, and Mt. omitted the tasting, we 
might have supposed that Mt., as often, was omitting what 
seemed to imply ignorance on Christ’s part; for certainly the 
tasting does seem to imply that our Lord did not know what 
kind of drink it was until He tasted it. The fact is parallel to 
His going up to the braggart fig-tree, to see whether it had any 
fruit. In both cases our Lord seems to have abstained from 
using supernatural power where natural power sufficed. We may 
suppose that He refused to drink the cup which would have 
deadened His sufferings because He desired to drink to the full 
the cup which His Father had given to Him (Jn. xviii. τα). ἢ 

After the casting of lots, which is in all four evn oe Mt. omits as oo 
fluous ‘what each should take’ (Mk.). The second half of ver. 35, ‘That 
it might be fulfilled,’ etc. (AV.), is no doubt a later interpolation from Jn. 
xix. 24. The words are found in Δ Φ, some Latin and some Syriac texts, 
and Arm. But they are wanting in NABDLIII®, Syr-Sin. Acgyptt. 
Acth. 

In what follows (36) Mt. has ‘And they sat and watched Him there’ 
where Mk. has ‘ And it was the third hour, and they crucified Him.” We have 
seen that Mt. is apt to omit details, especially details with numbers (viii. 32, 
xiv. 16, 19, xxvi. 9); and here he may have seen that the fixing of a definite 
hour involved difficulty. For ‘ crucified Him’ (ἐσταύρωσαν αὐτόν) D and some 
Latin texts have ‘guarded Him’ (ἐφύλασσον αὐτόν, custodiehant eum). It 
looks as if Mt. had had atext of Mk. with this reading : otherwise, why should 
he change ‘ crucified’ into ‘ watched ὃ 


1 That He refused it because of its nauscous taste does not seem to be 
adequate ; but sce Wright, Composition of the Gospels, p. 126. 


396 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XXVII. 38 


It has often been pointed out that no two Gospels agree as 
to the wording of the title on the cross; but all four have the 
significant words, ‘The King of the Jews.’ Yet it is probable 
that Mt. is right in putting ‘Jesus’ also, for it was usual to give 
the name of the condemned; and Jn. is probably right in adding 
‘the Nazarene’ (ὁ Ναζωραῖος) to ‘Jesus.’ S. John had read the 
inscription again and again, as he stood by the Crucified; and 
it is he who tells us that it was written in the two languages of 
the country as well as in the official Latin. The Gospel of 
Nicodemus repeats this; but it rather confusedly adds that Pilate 
ordered this ‘in accordance with what the Jews had said’; while 
the Gospel of Peter altogether spoils the Procurator’s mockery, 
by not merely attributing the inscription to Jews, but making it 
run, ‘This is the King of Zsvael.’1_ See pp. 387, 393. 

The two robbers (38) may have been connected in crime 
with Barabbas, but at any rate they were ‘bandits’ (Ayora‘) 
plundering by violence, and not pitiful ‘thieves’ (κλέπται). 
They had perhaps been condemned about the same time that 
our Lord was condemned, for one of them had heard Him 
speak about His Kingdom (Lk. xxiii. 42); and they had 
certainly been led with Him to execution (Lk.). Now they are 
placed, in derision of Him, one on each side of Him. He is 
enthroned on a gibbet as King of the robbers. Thus, through 
the malice of His enemies, the very manner of His death illus- 
trates the purpose and the result of His coming into the world. 
He came to save the penitent ; but that involved a separation 
of the penitent from the impenitent (Jn. ii. 19-21, ΧΙ. 46-48) ; 
and He separates the penitent from the impenitent on the cross ; 
like Aaron (Num. xvi. 48), ‘He stood between the dead and the 
living.’ 

The names given to the two robbers in legend have no historical value. 
Dismas, Dysmas, Dymas, Dimas, and Demas are variant names for the 
penitent robber, Gestas, Gesmas, and Stegas for the impenitent. In the 
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy the two are called Titus and Dumachus 
(Θεομάχος) ; in Codex Colbertinus, Zoathan and Chammatha; in Codex 
Rhedigeranus, Ioathas and Maggatras ; in Bede, Matha and Joca; in Xaverius 
(Persian Life of Christ), Zjustin and Visimus. But perhaps the commonest 


names are Dismas and Gestas. The Aozus Latro is commemorated in the 
Roman Church on 25th March, in the Greek Church on the 23rd March. 


In mentioning the crucifixion of the robbers, Mt. has the 
passive where Mk. has the active. This is frequently the case 


1 That criminals had the ¢z¢u/s, stating their crime, fastened to their 
necks, as they went to the place of execution, is established: that it was 
fastened above their heads on the cross is probable, but evidence of such a 
custom seems to be wanting. The crx zmmzssa (with a projection above 
the cross-beam), which was the commonest shape, would suggest the affixing 
of the ¢z¢e:/us there. 


XXVIL 38-42] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 307 


(iv. 1, Vili. 15, Xiv. II, XIX. 13, xxiv. 22, etc.). Here the change 
seems to be made for the sake of greater accuracy. In Mk. the 
natural meaning is that the soldiers who crucified Jesus crucified 
the two robbers with Him ; but the ‘they’ is, no doubt, indefinite 
all through (16-27),—any soldiers. Each, however, of the three 
who were to be crucified would be in charge of a different 
quaternion of soldiers. Mt., having finished the action of those 
who crucified our Lord, goes on: ‘Then are there crucified 
with Him two robbers’; but he does not say or imply that it 
is the same set of soldiers as before who do this. And we 
may note the characteristic ‘Then’ and the unusual historic 
present. 

There is nothing to show who ‘they that passed by and 
railed on Him’ were, but they know about the charges which 
had been brought against Him in the Sanhedrin (xxvi. 61, 63). 
The sarcastic, ‘Save Thyself’ is in all three Synoptists. In 
choosing the expression ‘they that pass by’ (οἱ παραπορευόμενοι) 
the Evangelists were probably influenced by Lam. i. ra, 11. 15 ; 
comp. Ps. xxii. 8; Is. li. 23. These mockers are not the 
hierarchy, who are separately mentioned; but they are prob- 
ably some who had been induced to clamour for the release 
of Barabbas and the crucifixion of Jesus, and who perhaps 
a day or two earlier had joined in the shouts of Hosanna. 

In describing the Sanhedrists (41), Mt. again adds ‘the 
elders,’ as in vv. 12, 20. Their words of derision, ‘Others He 
saved,’ is in all three. Yet this sarcasm, with its sequel, 
‘Himself He cannot save,’ though spoken in mockery, was 
both true and also a great glory. The mockers were among 
those whom He was dying to save; and He could not come 
down from the cross and save Himself, because He was held, 
not by the nails, but by His will to save them. 

They said, ‘We will believe on Him, if He comes down 
from the cross.’ Would they have done so? They had Moses 
and the Prophets, and yet they did not believe on Him. They 
had heard His words and seen His mighty works, and yet they 
did not believe on Him. Nevertheless, after His Resurrection 
and the preaching and mighty works of the Apostles, ‘a great 
company of the priests were obedient to the faith’ (Acts vi. 7) ; 
~ but much has to happen before that is accomplished. Here it 
is possible that we have a confirmation of the statement that the 
chief priests made a vain attempt to get Pilate to alter the 
inscription on the cross (Jn. xix. 21, 22). In their chagrin, 
they accept the //u/us, but they express it in their own way, 
‘King of Israel,’ instead of ‘the King of the Jews,’ and they 
express their willingness to accept Him, if He will give them 
a sign (xii. 38, 39, xvi. 1). Such demands were never granted. 


398 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVII. 45 


The addition to their mockery which Mt. here makes, looks 
as if it was his own thought put into their mouths. Their words 
suggest to the Evangelist the words of Ps. xxii. 8 (with perhaps 
a reminiscence of Is. xxxvi. 5 or 2 Chron. xvi. 7),! and he adds 
the quotation as being appropriate. It is not very likely that 
the Sanhedrists, if the words of the Ps. occurred to them, would 
utter them aloud. But it is possible that Mk. omitted the 
quotation for the same reason that he omits almost all references 
to the Old Testament, as having little interest for Gentile 
readers. 

It would seem as if neither Mt. nor Mk. knew anything 
about the penitent robber. The tradition which they follow 
recorded that reproaches came from the robbers; and it is, of 
course, possible that at first both robbers reproached Christ. But 
this harmonistic hypothesis must not be asserted as a certainty. 


XXVII. 45-56. Zhe Death of the Messiah. 


The darkness from the sixth to the ninth hour (twelve till 
three o’clock) is in all three Synoptists, and this is the first 
mention of an hour of the day by Mt. The Gospel of Peter 
says that “1 was noon,” and it probably gives the right inter- 
pretation of the Evangelists when it goes on to say that ‘‘ darkness 
covered all Judea.” ‘All the earth,’ or ‘the whole earth,’ may 
be justified as a translation (Lk. xxi. 35; Rev. xiii. 3), but it is 
not what seems to be meant. The darkness ‘over all the /and 
of Egypt’ (ἐπὶ πᾶσαν γῆν Αἰγύπτου) is perhaps in the narrator’s 
mind. There is here, says an ancient commentator, ‘‘the sign 
from heaven which they asked Jesus to give” (Victor of Antioch). 
But there is no need to insist upon anything miraculous. Ex- 
traordinary events proceeding from natural causes may rightly 
be regarded as signs; but caution and insight are required for 
the interpretation of them. Was Nature throwing a veil over 
the sufferings of the Messiah? or expressing sympathy with 
them? or protesting against the conduct of the Jews? Ideas 
such as these are found in the Fathers, and we can neither 
affirm nor contradict them. As a cause of the darkness an 
eclipse is impossible, for it was the time of the Paschal full- 
moon. ‘The Gospel of Peter says that “‘many went about with 
lamps, supposing that it was night, and fell down.” In the so- 
called Report of Pilate to Tiberius, the Procurator assumes that 
the Emperor is aware that “in all the world they lighted lamps 
from the sixth hour until evening.” 


1 The change from ‘hoped’ to ‘trusted’ suggests this. There is perhaps 
also an echo of Wisd. ii. 18: ‘ But if the righteous man is God’s son, He 
will uphold him.’ 


XXVII. 46, 47] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 300 


Neither Mk. nor Mt. give any other word from the cross 
than the one which is recorded here (46), and which both of 
them give in Aramaic, with the interpretation in Greek. Hitherto 
Mt. has given only single Aramaic words (Amen, Corban, 
Mamon, Pascha, Raca, Satan, and Golgotha), but here in 
company with Mk. he gives us a sentence in Aramaic.! The 
translation which Mt. and Mk. give is that of the Septuagint, 
except that Mt. has the vocative instead of the nominative used 
for the vocative (Θεέ μου for ὁ Θεός pov), while Mk. more exactly 
follows the Greek of Ps. xxii. 1, although he has εἰς τί for 
iva τί, The translation in the Gospel of Peter is remarkable: 
“My power, power, thou has forsaken Me.” And this is 
followed by “And when He had said it He was taken up.” 
This and other features in the fragment seem to show that the 
Gospel of Peter favoured the Gnostic view that the Divine Son 
of God was united to the human Son of Mary at His Baptism 
and departed from Him at the Crucifixion. This word from 
the cross, like the final cry (5ο -- ΜΚ. xv. 37=Lk. xxiii. 46), is 
said to have been uttered in aloud voice. For an awful moment, 
the agony of which is beyond our comprehension, even the love 
of the Father seemed to have been withdrawn from Him. A 
passage in the Testaments may serve as a comment: “ For the 
Lord doth not forsake (ἐγκαταλείπει) them that fear Him, not 
in darkness, or bonds, or afflictions, or necessities... . For a 
little space He departeth, to try (δοκιμάσαι) the inclination of 
the soul. . . . Because long-suffering is a mighty charm (φάρμακον), 
and endurance giveth many good things” (_/JosefA ii. 4-7). 

Whether ‘This man calleth Elijah’ was spoken in mockery 
or not does not appear. ‘Let us see whether Elijah cometh to 
save Him’ (49) does not prove that the group of persons who 
started the idea did so in a spirit of derision. Elijah, it is said, 
was regarded as ‘‘a deliverer in time of trouble,” and these by- 
standers? may have been serious in thinking that Jesus had 
invoked his aid. In any case, the remark seems to favour the 
form ‘Eli’ rather than ‘Eloi’; but Mt. may have made the 
change because in Greek 7Ae sounds more like "HAéas than 
é\wi does. Neither Mt. nor Mk. mention the cry of ‘I thirst,’ 
which Jn. tells us led to the ‘vinegar’ or sour wine ( fosca) being 
put to our Lord’s lips in a sponge. Jn. uses the plural, but it 
is not likely that more than one man acted in this way, and 

ΤῸ is remarkable that in Mk., who wrote for Gentiles, Aramaic ex- 

ressions are more frequent than in Mt., who wrote for Jewish Christians. 
Bee Schiirer, 11. i. 9; Hastings’ DZ. iii. p. 39; Dalman, Words, p. 53. 
The exact wording of the cry in Mk. and Mt. remains a problem which 
cannot be solved with any certainty. See Swete on Mk. xv. 34, 35. 

2 Mt. has his favourite ‘there’ (τῶν ἐκεῖ dornxérwr), where Mk. has simply 
τῶν ἑστηκότων. Comp. xiv. 23, xv. 29, xix. 2, xxi. 17, xxvi. 36, 71. 


400 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [ΧΧΥΤΙ. 49, δὲ 


both Mt. (eis) and Mk. (τις) say expressly one. And as John 
stood by the cross we may believe that it was a stalk of hyssop,! 
and not a reed that was used by the compassionate bystander. 
Thus far there is no serious divergence between the three 
narratives. But Mk. says that it was this same man who cried: 
‘Let be ([Αφετε) : let us see whether Elijah cometh to take Him 
down’; while Mt. says that it was ‘the rest’ (of λοιποί) who 
cried: ‘Let be ("Ad¢es): let us see whether Elijah cometh to 
save Him.’? That is, Mk. represents the compassionate man 
as deprecating the interference of the rest; whereas Mt. says 
that it was the rest who told him to stop and leave everything 
to Elijah. It is difficult to see the reason for these changes, 
unless Mt. had some authority other than Mk. 


At the end of ver. 49 there is a remarkable interpolation from Jn. xix. 34 
which must have been made very early, for it is found in NBCLUT and 
five inferior cursives ; some Latin texts, Syr-Hier. and Aeth. ; Chrys. and 
perhaps Tatian. Even if the words ἄλλος δὲ λαβὼν λόγχην ἔνυξεν αὐτοῦ τὴν 
πλευρὰν καὶ ἐξῆλθεν dap καὶ αἷμα were placed here in Tatian’s Diatessaron, 
that would not account for their presence in the authorities quoted above. 
Tatian’s work had no such influence, and the evidence points to an earlier 
insertion. It is perhaps just possible that the words were in the original text 
of Mt., and were omitted in all other MSS. and Versions on account of their 
intrinsic difficulty and contradiction of S. John, who places the piercing after 
Christ’s death. But it is improbable that Mt. would have recorded the pierc- 
ing of the side and the effusion of blood and water, and would then have gone 
on to say that Jesus again cried with a loud voice. And would Mt. have 
recorded the piercing without recalling the Scripture which S. John quotes 
in connexion with it? Whereas it is not impossible that a mere copyist would 
make an insertion out of harmony with the context, being led to do so because 
els ἐξ αὐτῶν (Mt. xxvii. 48) recalled εἷς τῶν στρατιωτῶν (Jn. xix. 34). ‘*Eine 
ungeschickte Interpolation aus Jo xix. 34” is Zahn’s conclusion, and it is 
probably correct. So also Salmon: ‘‘If the passage had ever been in the 
genuine text of the First Gospel, it could never have been eliminated, so 
as to leave so little trace of its existence” (Human Element, Ρ- 524). He 
thinks that some one, remembering the story as told by S. John, severed the 


incident from its true connexion. See Nestle, Zextzal Criticism, pp. 227, 
228. 


The way in which Mt. (50) changes the wording of Mk. 
(xv. 37) in recording the death of the Messiah brings out with 
greater clearness that the death was a voluntary laying down of 
His life (Jn. x. 18). He transfers the ‘sending forth’ or ‘letting 
go’ (ἀφιέναι) from the cry to the spirit: instead of ‘ Jesus, having 
sent forth a loud voice, expired,’ Mt. has, ‘Jesus, having cried 


1 Unless we adopt the conjectural reading ὑσσῷ for ὑσσώπῳ: A pilum or 
javelin seems more probable than hyssop, but S. John would remember that 
it was not a reed. 

* Ought there to be a comma between ”Ages or”Agere and tSwuev? Why 
not take the two verbs together, as in the case of ἄφες ἐκβάλω (vii. 4), and 
translate, ‘Let us see,’ without a preceding ‘Let be’? J. H. Moulton, 
Gram. of N.7. Gr. p. 175. Ἶ 


XXVII. 51] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 401 


again with a loud voice, sent forth His spirit.’ Jn. also em- 
phasizes the voluntary surrender of life: παρέδωκεν τὸ πνεῦμα. 
The Messiah did not die of exhaustion, struggling for life. Of 
His own will He let go what He could have retained. ‘Who 
goes away so entirely when He pleases as Jesus died when He 
pleased ?” (Aug. Z7. in Joh. xix. 30). The ‘again’ in Mt. refers 
to the cry, ‘My God, My God’ (46). Lk. tells us what the later 
cry was: ‘Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit’ (xxiii. 
46). Like the earlier cry, it comes from the Psalms (xxxi. 5). 
That our Lord knew the Psalms and used them is at least as 
probable as that the Evangelists attributed suitable words from 
the Psalms to Him. And do the other Words from the Cross 
look like inventions? Contrast the inventions in the apocryphal 
gospels. 

The rending of the veil of the Temple (51) is recorded by 
all three Synoptists, and Mt. makes little change in the wording 
of Mk. But Lk. connects it with the darkness which preceded 
the death, Mt. with the earthquake which followed the death, 
and which he alone mentions. Mk. mentions it after the death 
without special connexion. We may suppose that the priests, 
‘a great company’ of whom became ‘obedient to the faith’ after 
Pentecost (Acts vi. 7), were the authorities for this remarkable 
occurrence. This veil separated the Holy of Holies from the 
Holy Place, and it is mentioned nowhere else in the N.T., for 
Heb. ix. 3 refers to the Tabernacle, not to the Temple. The 
rending of it is mentioned, possibly as a portent, but more 
probably as symbolical of the change which was involved in the 
death of the Messiah. The rending would indicate that the 
special sanctity of the place was now at an end, because the 
purpose for which the Temple and its services had been continued 
no longer existed. That which had hitherto been screened off 
from the world was now thrown open to be trodden underfoot 
by the Gentiles (Lk. xxi. 24). Or again, that which had hitherto 
been accessible to the high priest alone, and to him but once 
a year, was now thrown open to all Christians, at all times, for 
in Christ each Christian is a high priest (Heb. x. 19 and West- 
cott’s note). Every barrier between the soul of man and the 
presence of God was removed by the death of the Messiah. 
Jerome says that the Gospel according to the Hebrews stated 
that it was a lintel (super/imenare) of the Temple that was rent 
(Ep. cxx. ad Hedib. 8; in Mt.). It is likely enough that damage 


1In the Testaments the best texts give a parallel: ‘‘The veil of the 
temple shall be rent, so as not to cover your shame” ; σχισθήσεται τὸ κατα- 
πέτασμα τοῦ ναοῦ (Levi ix. 3). But some texts have ἔνδυμα, which would 
point to the rending of garments, rather than of the veil. See Charles, 
ad loc. 


26 


402 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 5. MATTHEW |[|XXVII. 51, 52 


to the building accompanied the rending of the veil; but it is 
rash to say that the veil “‘must have been torn asunder by angel 
hands.” Of the manner of rending we know nothing. 

Josephus (4. 7. vi. v. 3) mentions a number of portents 
which preceded the destruction of the Temple, and among them, 
that at the Passover the heavy gates of the Temple, which were 
shut with difficulty by twenty men, and had bolts fastened deep 
into a solid stone, opened of their own accord in the night. The 
Gemara mentions a similar thing as happening at a Passover 
about forty years before the overthrow of Jerusalem. As Neander 
and Zahn remark, these statements point to a recollection of 
something extraordinary having taken place in the Temple at the 
time of the Crucifixion. Since the Jews turned the Temple into 
a robbers’ den (xxi. 13), Mt. has regarded it as doomed, and he 
here indicates that its desolation has begun. See DCG., art. 
‘Veil? - 

Mt. adds two other portents to the rending of the veil:! an 
earthquake, which rent the rocks and opened the tombs; and 
the resurrection of certain holy persons, who left the tombs and 
appeared to many in Jerusalem.? There was no doubt a tradition 
to this effect among Palestinian Christians, and the Evangelist 
thought it worthy of being inserted here. ‘The earthquake helps 
to explain the rending of the veil and (if the other story be 
accepted) the breaking of the lintel, and it is not impossible that 
the earthquake was an inference from these strange phenomena. 
If they took place, must they not have been caused by an earth- 
quake? And if the earthquake took place, would not tombs be 
opened? Then open tombs at once suggest resurrection. We 
seem to have here a tradition with a legendary element in 11.8 
Mk. and Lk., while agreeing with Mt. about the darkness and 
the rending of the veil, are silent about the earthquake and the 
resurrection of the saints. And the tradition as given by Mt. 
is inconsistent with itself. ‘The opening of the tombs, the rising 
of the bodies of the saints, and their coming out of the tombs 
must be thought of as taking place at the same time; and yet, 
while the opening of the tombs is caused by the earthquake at 
the Crucifixion, the bodies are said to have come out of the 


1Jt is possible that here again Mt. is making a triplet. Three signs 
attest the Messiahship of the Crucified: the rending of the veil, the earth- 
quake, and the resurrection of the saints. 

2 With ‘the holy city’ comp. iv. 5 and reff. 

3 What is recorded in the Gospels has a tendency to grow. Arnobius 
(adv. Gentes, i. 53) says that ‘‘all the elements of the universe were thrown into 
confusion” ; and in writings attributed to Dionysius the Areopagite it is said 
that, when the philosophers at Athens could not explain these wonders, it 
was concluded that the God of nature was suffering, and the people raised an 
altar to Him with the inscription, To the unknown God. 


XXVII. 52, 53] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 403 


tombs ‘after His Resurrection.’ Mt. or his authority has added 
‘after His Resurrection’ in order to preserve for the Messiah 
the glory of being ‘the firstfruits of them that are asleep’ (1 Cor. 
xv. 20, 23); but the words do not harmonize with the context. 
The word for ‘resurrection’ (ἔγερσις) occurs nowhere else in the 
NT., nor in the Septuagint in this sense! The usual word in 
this Gospel (xxii. 23, 28, 30, 31) and elsewhere, in Gospels, Acts, 
and Epistles, is ἀνάστασις. And who are these ‘saints’? The 
expression (oi ἅγιοι) is found nowhere else in the Gospels; and 
elsewhere in the N.T. it is used always of Christians (Acts ix. 13, 
41; Rom. xii. 13, xv. 25, 26, 31, etc.). It would seem, there- 
fore, to mean those who, like Simeon and Anna, Zacharias and 
Elizabeth, had accepted Jesus as the Messiah; and it was 
perhaps in order to point to saints of the O.T. that the reading 
τῶν δικαίων (Syr-Sin., Tatian) was substituted. What was 
the purpose of their appearing to many in Jerusalem? And 
what became of these ‘ dodies of the saints’ (a remarkable expres- 
sion) after they had appeared to others? Did they return to 
their tombs? We are not told that their appearance produced 
belief in the Resurrection of the Messiah, or served any other 
purpose. Comp. Heb. xi. 40, xii. 23. 

On the other hand, there is no textual evidence that the 
passage is an interpolation, and we need not doubt that the 
tradition of these resurrections was believed by the Evangelist 
himself. Westcott (Zut. to the Study of the Gospels, p. 328) 
classes it with other details which are peculiar to Mt.’s narrative 
of the Passion, and which “all tend to show how the Messiahship 
of Jesus was attested during the course of events which checked 
the faith of some.” It is possible that Ignatius refers to these 
resurrections in connexion with the descent into Hades (Magnes. 
ix.; see Lightfoot’s note), and it is certain that Eusebius does 
(Dem. Ev. x. 8, p. 501). Moreover, although the earthquake 
is not mentioned by Mk., yet something of the kind seems to 
be required in order to explain the exclamation of the centurion, 
which, according to Mk., was caused simply by the way in which 
Christ gave up His life.2 Would the loud voice suffice to con- 
vince the Roman officer that this was not only an innocent (Lk.), 


1 It may be understood actively, ‘after the raising of Him’; comp. ‘for 
the raising up of the House of the Lord’ (1 Esdr. v. 62) ; also of Gideon’s 
rousing the guards (ἐγέρσει ἤγειρεν) in the A text of Judg. vii. 19. But ‘my 
downsitting and mine uprising ’ (Ps. cxxxix. 2) favours the neuter signification, 

2 In the Testaments there is a passage which predicts two of these excep- 
tional phenomena (the rending of the rocks and the darkness) as among the 
judgments which are coming upon the sons of men: ὅτι πετρῶν σκιζομένων, καὶ 
τοῦ ἡλίου σβεννυμένου or σκοτιζομένου. A few lines lower down is an obscure 
line which may be an interpolation referring to Hades being spoiled by the 
resurrection of these saints (Zevé iv. 1), See Charles, ad /oc, 


404 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [ΧΧΥῚ]. 54 


but a supernatural (Mk., Mt.) person? Nevertheless, the resur- 
rection of the saints had nothing to do with that conviction, and 
when we have admitted the earthquake as historical, in spite 
of the silence of Mk. and Lk., we have still the difficulty of the 
bodies leaving the tombs to explain. The earthquake explains 
how such a tradition might arise, but it is no evidence of its 
truth. The saints might have risen without the earthquake, and 
the earthquake might take place without their resurrection. 
Those who accept the tradition as true “consider it full of 
spiritual meaning as to the supernatural character of our Lord’s 
death in relation to the holy dead, holding that it was a mani- 
festation of His power over death and the grave (1) by the 
resurrection of some from Hades, (2) by the clothing of them 
with a resurrection body, and (3) by permission to appear to 
those who knew them” (DCG., art. ‘Saints’). See also Andrews, 
Life of Our Lord, p. 561; Edersheim, Life and Times, ii. 
p. 612; Alford and B. Weiss, ad Joc. 

After this anticipation of the Resurrection, the Evangelist 
returns to the moment of Christ’s death (54). Mt. alone says 
that those who were guarding Jesus joined with the centurion in 
declaring that there must be something more than human in one 
whose death was accompanied by such phenomena. In this we 
see again his tendency to enhance whatever contributed to the 
glory of the Messiah. He emphasizes the wonderful character 
of the miracles which adorned His life; and here he augments 
the testimony of those who were impressed by the manner of His 
death. Instead of repeating Mk.’s rather otiose statement that 
the centurion ‘stood by over against Him,’ he brings in the other 
Roman soldiers, and adds that all of them ‘feared exceedingly.’ 
And he omits the ‘man’ (ἄνθρωπος, Mk., Lk.) from the exclama- 
tion: ‘Truly this man wasason of God.’ There is no article before 
‘son,’ and the centurion, however much he may have heard of 
the conversations with Pilate (Jn. xix. 7), cannot have meant 
very much by ‘son of God.’ It is remarkable that the Gospel 
which records the words that explain the centurion’s expression, 
‘ Father, into Thy hands I commend My spirit,’ does not record 
the expression. Lk. has, ‘Certainly this was a righteous man.’ 
We have already had one excellent centurion in the Gospel 
narrative (vili. 5-13), and this one is another worthy repre- 
sentative of the class. Polybius (vi. 24) tells us what solid 
and strong characters were looked for in those who were pro- 
moted to be centurions. It illustrates the want of originality 
in legends, which constantly borrow features from earlier 
legends, that the name Longinus (λόγχη) is given both to 
this centurion and to the soldier who pierced Christ’s side 
with a spear; also to a prefect who was commissioned by 


ΧΧΥ͂ΤΙ. 55, 56] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 4οὸς 


Nero to put 5. Paul to death (Donehoo, Zhe Afocryphal Life 
of Christ, p. 360). 

In this mention of the women who were present at the 
Crucifixion (55, 56), Mt. has a smoother arrangement of clauses 
than Mk.,! and it is perhaps not without purpose that he changes 
‘also’ (xat) into his favourite ‘there’ (ἐκεῖ. Mk. couples the 
women with the centurion: ‘And there were a/so women.’ 
They, like the centurion, regarded the death of the Messiah with 
sympathy.. Mt. suggests no such comparison: ‘And many 
women were “here.” It is one more instance of candour on the 
part of the Evangelists that they record how women, who might 
be expected to have less courage, watched till the very end, after 
all the disciples had left Him and fled (xxvi. 56; ΜΚ. xiv. 50). 
All three mention that these women were from Galilee, and are 
therefore not to be identified with the ‘daughters of Jerusalem’ 
(Lk. xxiii. 28) who had witnessed the procession to Calvary. 
Both Mt. and Mk. mention that there were many of them. 
Mary Magdalen is introduced as a well-known person, although 
she has not been previously mentioned in the Gospel. It is 
from Lk. (viii. 2) and from the appendix to Mk. (xvi. 9) that we 
learn that she had been freed from demoniacal possession. 
Μαγδαληνή probably means ‘of Magdala’; comp. Ναζαρηνός. 
She is not to be identified with any other Mary, and certainly 
not with the ‘sinner’ of Lk. vii. 37, which is “a graver error in 
Western Christian tradition” (Swete), yet impossible to eradicate. 
‘The mother of the sons of Zebedee’ (Mt.) is, no doubt, 
identical with ‘Salome’ (Mk.). She has already been mentioned 
xx. 20, where Mt. transfers to her the ambitious request for her 
sons which Mk. attributes to the sons themselves. ‘Mary the 
mother of James and Joseph’ is the same as ‘ Mary of Clopas’ 
(Jn. xix. 25); but she was not the sister of the Virgin, and 
Clopas is not to be identified with Alpheus, nor with the 
Cleopas of Lk. xxiv. 18. We cannot safely argue that James 
and Joseph are mentioned because they were leading men in the 
Apostolic age. They are mentioned here in order to distinguish 
their mother from other women of the same name. 


Here, as in xiii. 55, Mt., according to the best texts, has ‘ Joseph,’ while 
Mk., according to the best texts, has Joses; but the evidence is confused. 
Joseph and Joses are different forms of the same name; but the Joseph or 


1JIn changing, as often, imperfects (ἠκολούθουν καὶ διηκόνουν) into the 
aorist (ἠκολούθησαν διακονοῦσαι), Mt. makes the statement less accurate, It 
was during the stay in Galilee, and not merely on the journey to Jerusalem, 
that these women ministered to the Messiah, and in some cases their minister- 
ing was prompted by what He had done for them in healing them. It has 
been noticed that no women are mentioned among those who were hostile 
to the Messiah. 


406 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVII. 57, 58 


Joses of xiii. 55 and Mk. vi. 3, who is a brother of the Lord, is not to be 
identified with the Joseph or Joses here and Mk. xv. 40, any more than the 
James there is to be identified with the James here, whom Mk. (xv. 40) calls 
‘James the little,’ to distinguish him from the son of Zebedee, where ‘ the 
little’ (ὁ μικρός) probably refers to stature, as in Lk. xix. 3. Both here and 
Mk. xv. 40, Syr-Sin. has ‘ the daughter of James and mother of Joseph,’ which 
is not likely to be the meaning of ἡ τοῦ ᾿ΙΓακώβου καὶ ’Iwond μήτηρ. The Aeth. 
has μήτηρ with both names, while some Old Latin texts have μήτηρ with 
neither. It is probable that Joanna, the wife of Chuza, Herod’s steward 
(Lk. viii. 3, xxiv. 10), was among the many women whom Mt. and Mk. do 
not name. 

Mt. alone, here and xx. 20, speaks of ‘the mother of the sons of Zebedee.’ 
Why he should avoid mentioning their names here is not obvious. Mt., Mk., 
and Jn. tell us that Mary Magdalen was present at the Crucifixion, and we 
may infer this from Lk. xxiii. 49, xxiv. 10. Jn. alone tells us that the 
Mother of Jesus was there. 


XXVII. 57-61. The Burial of the Messiah. 


Mt. follows Mk. in noting that it was evening, but he omits 
‘because it was the Preparation, that is, the day before the 
sabbath.’ He also substitutes ‘rich’ for ‘a councillor of 
honourable estate,’ and ‘was Jesus’ disciple’ (ἐμαθητεύθη τῷ 
Ἰησοῦ) for ‘was looking for the Kingdom of God.’ All three 
changes may be mere abbreviations, but the change to ‘rich’ is 
perhaps made with a view to ‘with the rich in his death’ (Is. 
lili. 9). By ‘evening’ (ὀψία) is meant the time between 3 p.m., 
when our Lord died, and sunset, after which no work could be 
done. 

Joseph of Arimathzea, with the centurion and the women, 
may be counted as a triplet of those who regarded the Cruci- 
fixion with sympathy and reverence. But it is not a triplet of 
Mt.’s own making, for the arrangement is already in Mk. In the 
case of the signs which accompanied the Messiah’s death, the 
triplet is made by Mt.’s adding two signs to the one recorded 
by Mk. Nevertheless, the triplets in Mk. may have had an 
attraction for Mt., so that he adopted them readily. The 
identification of Arimathzea with Ramathaim, the birth-place and 
burial-place of Samuel, is possible, but not certain. 

We may believe that Joseph of Arimathzea had, like Simeon 
and Anna, been ‘looking for the Kingdom of God’ before he 
came into contact with Jesus. Then he became a secret disciple. 
At the death of the Master he became an open one. He 
‘summoned up courage’ (τολμήσας), as Mk. says, and went in 
before the Procurator to ask for the Lord’s Body. It did re- 
quire courage to do this. Pilate had just been driven by the 
Sanhedrin to put an innocent man to death—a humiliating 
experience for the official representative of Roman Law, and he 
could not be expected to be gracious to a member of that court. 


XXVII. 58-61] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 407 


Joseph had no legal claim to the Body, for he was not a relation. 
He would therefore have to explain why he was interested in the 
burial, and this would amount to confessing that he had been a 
disciple of ‘the King of the Jews.’ Moreover, his request to the 
Procurator would become known, and this might bring him into 
serious collision with the hierarchy. 

Both Mt. and Lk. avoid the term ‘corpse’ (πτῶμα), which is 
what Mk. says that Pilate ‘granted’ (ἐδωρήσατο). The latter 
expression perhaps means that there was no need to bribe the 
Procurator, whereas Mt.’s expression (ἐκέλευσεν ἀποδοθῆναι) might 
mean that Pilate commanded the Body to be delivered in return 
for a fee.1 Both Mt. and Lk. omit Pilate’s surprise at Christ’s 
being already dead, and his asking the centurion if it were a fact. 
The centurion’s report of the circumstances of Christ’s death 
would make Pilate disposed to grant Joseph’s request without a 
fee. Mt. and Mk. seem to imply that Pilate had the Body taken 
down by soldiers and given to Joseph; but Lk. expressly states 
that Joseph took it down, and Jn. adds that Nicodemus helped 
him. 

Again, both Mt. and Lk. omit the buying of the linen, but 
Mt. mentions that it was ‘clean’ (σινδόνι καθαρᾷ), which means 
that, like the tomb, it had not been used. This ‘clean linen’ 
may be the same as the strips (ὀθόνια) with which the spices 
were bound to the Body (Jn. xix. 40). Neither Mt. nor Mk. 
mention either these spices or those which the women prepared, 
for use when the sabbath was over (Lk.). They merely tell us 
that two of the women watched the sepulchre. 

That the tomb was hewn in rock is of importance in reference 
to the lie that the disciples had stolen the Body. ‘They could 
not have removed it without breaking the seal. The sepulchre 
was probably a small chamber, along one side of which was a 
shelf cut in the rock, and on this shelf the Body was laid. The 
‘sreat stone’ (Mt. perhaps gets ‘great’ from Mk. xvi. 4) was no 
doubt ready for use. It was these stones, forming the doors to 
tombs, that were whitewashed every spring (xxiii. 27) to prevent 
passers-by from being made ceremonially unclean. ‘The stones 
were sometimes round and flat, like millstones, lying upright against 
the face of the rock in which the excavation was made. They 
could then be easily rolled backwards and forwards, to open or 
close the aperture. 

‘Mary the mother of James and Joseph’ (56) must be meant 
by ‘the other Mary.’ Mk. calls her ‘Mary of Joses’ (Μαρία ἡ 


1 Contrast ἐκέλευσεν δοθῆναι (xiv. 9), and comp. the difference between 
δοῦναι and ἀπόδοτε (xxii. 17, 21). In the Gospel of Peter, Joseph is the friend 
of Pilate, who passes on Joseph’s request for the Body to Herod, and Herod 
tells his ‘‘ brother Pilate” that it must be buried. 


J : 
408 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ 5. MATTHEW [XXVII. 62 


ἸἸωσῆτος), which might mean ‘the daughter of Joses,’ but 
probably does not. She sat with the Magdalen to see the last 
of the Lord whom they had loved. The quiet reverence of the 
description in both Gospels is remarkable. Mt. adds the touch 
that Joseph, after closing the sepulchre, departed. The two 
women, apparently, still sat on. The similarity of ver. 61, both 
in structure and in substance, to ver. 55 should be noted. In 
both there is the frequent ‘there’ (ἐκεῖ). 


XXVIII. 62-66. The Sepulchre made Secure. 


Mt. here makes another insertion (comp. vv. 52, 53) which 
probably comes from traditions current in Palestine. It forms, 
and is perhaps intended to form, a striking contrast to the pre- 
ceding paragraph. There we had the faithful three showing 
affectionate devotion to the Body of the Messiah. Here we have 
His bitter enemies pursuing Him with implacable hostility even 
beyond the shameful and cruel death to which they have subjected 
Him. They will not rest until they have made it impossible for 
His followers to turn His death into a point in favour of His 
cause. And it is remarkable that, while even the chosen three 
did not understand what the rising from the dead meant (Mk. 
ix. 10), and while none of the disciples seem to have found any 
comfort in Christ’s predictions that He would rise again, yet the 
chief priests and the Pharisees understood and remembered, and 
were determined that no apparent fulfilment of such predictions 
should be accomplished by the disciples. 

‘Now on the morrow, which is after the Preparation’ (62). 
The expression is remarkable and redundant. ‘On the morrow’ 
would have sufficed, and ‘on the sabbath’ would have been 
plainer. ‘The Preparation’ had already become a name for 
Friday as the eve of the sabbath. Mt. uses it without explanation, 
but Mk. (xv. 42) tells his Gentile readers what it means. It 
looks as if Mt. employed this circumlocution in order to avoid 
using the word ‘sabbath.’ Did he shrink from saying in so 
many words that this miserable act of hostility, on the part of the 
Jewish hierarchy against the Messiah, took place on the sabbath ? 
Months before this the Pharisees had been moved to take counsel 
to destroy Him, because He had done good on the sabbath 
(xii. 12-14); and now they do not scruple to do evil on the 
sabbath. It is possible that the expression is used as an equivalent 
for Mk.’s date (xv. 42), which Mt. omits at that point: Having 
given no mention of ‘the Preparation’ there, he names it here, 


1 The combination, ‘the chief priests and the Pharisees,’ occurs xxi. 45 
It is not found in Mk. or Lk., but is frequent in Jn. (vii. 32, 45, xi. 47, 57, 
XViii. 3). 


XXVII. 68] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 409 


and calls the sabbath ‘the morrow of the Preparation.’ It is just 
possible that this circumlocution was common among Jewish 
Christians when Mt. wrote. 

The readiness of Mt. to expose the iniquities of the Pharisees 
appears once more in his mentioning them as taking part in this 
deputation to the heathen Procurator on the sabbath. He often 
takes what Mk. supplies against the Pharisees (Mk. ii. 24 = Mt. 
xil. 2; Mk. iii. 6= Mt. xii. 14; Mk. vii. r= Mt. xv. σ ; Mk. viii. 
11=Mt. xvi. 1; Mk. viii. 15 = Mt. xvi. 6; Mk. x. 2= Mt. xix. 3; 
Mk. xii. 13 = Mt. xxii. 15), and he adds a great deal against them 
which is not in Mk., as here ; comp. iii. 7, v. 20, ix. 11, 34, xii. 38, 
XXI. 45, XXil. 34, 41, xxiii. 2, 13, 15, 23, 25, 27, 29. This is his 
last mention of the Pharisees. In his first mention of them he 
intimates that the Baptist’s stern condemnation of the ‘ offspring 
of vipers,’ which Lk. regards as addressed to the multitudes, was 
really addressed to Pharisees and Sadducees; and here, in his 
last mention of them, he illustrates once more their malignant 
opposition to the Messiah. 

The deputation address the Procurator with respect: ‘Sir 
(xxi. 30), it came to our mind (xxvi. 75). And they speak of 
Him whom they have forced the Procurator to crucify with con- 
temptuous abhorrence. They will not even name Him; they use 
a pronoun which indicates that He is far removed from them, and 
a substantive which stigmatizes Him as a seducer of the people: 
‘that deceiver’ (ἐκεῖνος 6 πλάνος) ; comp. Jn. ix. 28; 2 Jn. 7.1 
They quote His words in a manner which suggests the confidence 
with which they were spoken: ‘After three days I rise again’ 
(Mera τρεῖς ἡμέρας ἐγείρομαι). The Evangelist is perhaps thinking 
of xii. 40, which he says was spoken in the presence of certain 
Pharisees, but which is probably his own interpretation of Christ’s 
words. But ‘after three days’ (not ‘three days and three nights’) 
looks like a reference to Mk. viil. 31, x. 34 = Mt. xvi. 21, xx. 19 3? 
and although the words recorded there were spoken in private 
to the disciples, yet they may have been repeated until they 
reached the ears of His watchful enemies. ‘The Pharisees, having 
suggested that the Body might be stolen, put into the mouth of 
the disciples the very expression which Herod Antipas is said to 
have used of Jesus: that He was the Baptist, who ‘is risen from 
the dead’ (xiv. 2). ‘The last error’ (ἡ ἐσχάτη πλάνη) means ‘the 
last deceit’ or ‘the last seduction,’ with direct reference to ‘that 
deceiver’ or ‘seducer.’ The Pharisees knew that they must use 


1 Justin Martyr uses the same word when taxing the Jews with dissemi- 
nating lies about Christ (77y. 108), thereby showing acquaintance with this 
Gospel. See below on xxvili. 13-15. 

* It is remarkable that Mt., after twice correcting ‘after three days’ to the 
more accurate ‘on the third day,’ should have left ‘ after three days’ here. 


410 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [ΧΧΥΤΙ. 63-66 | 


political considerations in order to influence Pilate. Just as they 
had charged Jesus with claiming to be King of the Jews, while 
they said nothing about His claiming to be the Son of God, so 
here they mean that, if the disciples. persuaded people that 
Jesus had risen from the dead, they might cause a far more 
serious rising than had occurred at the Triumphal Entry, in 
consequence of the persuasion that Jesus was the Messiah ; 
comp. Xil. 45. 

The Pharisees do not dictate to Pilate Zow the sepulchre is 
to be made secure; they leave that to him: and they find him 
more willing than before to accede to their wishes. He had tried 
to escape from their determination to have Jesus put to death, 
but he raises no difficulty about the guarding of His tomb. 
Nevertheless, they are not welcome visitors. He had seen 
through their malignity before (17, 18), and no doubt he saw 
through it now. He dismisses them with a curt consent to their 
suggestion. ‘Take a guard; go, make it as secure as ye can.’ 
That his words mean ‘ Zae a guard,’ rather than ‘ Ye have a 
guard,’ seems clear from the fact that the only guard which they 
had was the Temple-police, and this they could have employed 
without coming to the Procurator. Evidently they want some- 
thing which required his permission; and it is Roman soldiers 
who are set to guard the tomb (xxviii. 12-15). Hence the ap- 
propriateness of the Latin word custodia (Ἔχετε κουστωδίαν). 
Comp. the ‘twelve /egtons of Angels’ (δώδεκα λεγιῶνας ἀγγέλων) 
in XXvi. 53. 

The sealing of the stone would seem to be the Pharisees’ own 
idea, and it was perhaps suggested by the sealing of the stone at 
the mouth of the lion’s den after Daniel had been thrown into it 
(Dan. vi. 17). In the O.T. both ‘seal’ and ‘sealing’ are frequent, 
whether in the literal sense or as a metaphor. In the N.T. ‘seal 
(σφραγίς) does not occur, and, except in this place, the verb is 
always used in a metaphorical sense. 

The hierarchy overreached themselves in these precautions. 
All that they accomplished was to increase the number of those 
who could bear witness to the Resurrection. And these addi- 
tional witnesses had to be bribed to give false witness,—with 
what result we do not know. We know that the plot failed, but 
we do not know how the bribed soldiers behaved. It is evident 
that the fact of the bribery became known, unless we assume 
that the whole story is a Christian invention; and it is more 
probable that it became known through some of the soldiers than 
through-any of the Sanhedrin. A soldier who would confess that 
he had been bribed would probably tell what he knew respecting 
the circumstances of the Resurrection. But some of the pests 
who were converted after Pentecost (Acts vi. 7) may have known 


XVIII. 1] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 411 


and disclosed the truth about this transaction. Comp. the 
Ascension of Isaiah, iii. 14. 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xxvii. : τότε (3, 9, 13, 27, 58), ἡγεμών 
(2, 11 δὲς, 14, 21, 27), λεγόμενος (16, 17, 22, 33 des), συνάγειν (17, 27, 62), 
ἐκεῖ (47, 55, 61), σφόδρα (54), ἐκεῖ (47, 55, 61), ἀποδιδόναι (SS), τάφος (61, 
64, 66), πορεύεσθαι (66). Peculiar: συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν (1, 6), of πρεσβύτεροι 
τοῦ λαοῦ (1), τὸ ῥηθέν (9), ᾿Ιερεμίας (9), συντάσσειν (10), Kar’ ὄναρ (10), 
κουστωδία (65, 66); peculiar to this chapter: ἀπάγχειν (5), ταφή (7), καθά 
(10), ἀθῷος (24), Θεέ (46), χλαμύς (28, 31), ἔγερσις (53). 

Mt. is the only Evangelist who uses τάφος of the sepulchre, and (excepting 
in a quotation in Romans) the word occurs nowhere else in the N.T. Mk. 
and Lk. use μνῆμα and μνημεῖον, and Jn. uses the latter only. Mt. uses 
μνημεῖον as well as τάφος. For centuries ‘ sepulchre’ has been the traditiona 
word in English. Seeing that μνῆμα and μνημεῖον are very frequent, and 
that τάφος is rare in this connexion, it seems to be unfortunate that ‘tomb 
was selected in RV. for the frequent terms, while ‘sepulchre ' represents the 
rare one. But such passages as vili. 28, Mk. v. 2, 3, § perhaps turned the 
scale, and the derivation of ‘ sepulchre’ may have helped to do so. 

Once more we have aorists (18, 34, 55) where Mk. (xvi. 10, 23, 41) has 
imperfects. 

It is doubtful whether Barnabas recalls ἔδωκαν αὐτῷ πιεῖν οἶνον μετὰ χολῆς 
μεμιγμένον (34) when he writes σταυρωθεὶς ἐποτίζετο ὄξει καὶ χολῇ (vii. 3). 
He may be thinking of ἔδωκαν els τὸ βρῶμὰ pov χολήν, καὶ els τὴν δίψαν μου 
ἐπότισάν με ὄξος (Ps. Ixix. 21). Mt. alone mentions χολή, but both he and 
Barnabas may be thinking of the Psalm independently, and Barnabas is 
closer to it with ποτίζειν and ὄξος. 


XXVIII. 1-10. Zhe Resurrection of the Messiah and His 
Appearance to certain Women. 


The earliest evidence that we have respecting the Resurrec- 
tion is that of S. Paul in 1 Corinthians, written about a.p. 56, 
and therefore about twenty-seven years after the Resurrection, 
which may be placed with much confidence in a.p. 29. If 
1 Corinthians is dated A.D. 53, as by Harnack, the interval 
between event and record is less than twenty-five years. In 
any case, the conversion of S. Paul took place soon after the 
Resurrection ; and therefore he had been convinced of the fact 
of the Resurrection for more than twenty years, and during the 
greater part of that time had known of the appearances of the 
Risen Lord to others, in addition to the appearance to himself 
which was the immediate cause of his conversion.! He mentions 
these appearances in chronological order: 1. to Peter; 2. to the 
Twelve ; 3. to over 500 disciples, most of whom still survive ; 
4. to James; 5. to all the Apostles. But he mentions no 
appearance to women. 

We must, however, beware of the dangerous argument from 


1 Most of the Twelve were still alive when he wrote 1 Cor., and he knew 
all that the Jews had said in denial of the Resurrection as well as what the 
first witnesses had testified respecting the fact. 


412 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 1-20 


silence, and of assuming that S. Paul knew nothing of any appear- 
ances to women. The evidence which he gives in this highly 
condensed form is “ official” evidence (Knowling, Zhe Testimony 
of S. Paul to Christ, pp. 301-3); itis that of the two leading 
persons in the Apostolic Church, S. Peter and S. James, and 
that of the Apostolic body as a whole. To this is added that of 
a large number of witnesses, who are added probably for two 
reasons: first, as being members of the largest company that saw 
the Risen Lord at any one time; and, secondly, as being for the 
most part still alive, and therefore capable of being questioned. 
Beside such a mass of official testimony it would have seemed 
altogether superfluous to mention an appearance to women, all 
the more so as the testimony of women was not greatly esteemed. 
Even if S. Paul had conversed with any of these women, he 
would not be likely to mention their evidence along with that of 
Apostles. 5. John, when he reckons up three manifestations of 
the Risen Lord to the disciples (xxi. 14), does not count the 
manifestation to Mary Magdalen, although he records it at con- 
siderable length. 

Next after the evidence of S. Paul comes that of Mk. 
Perhaps we may place it some twelve years later. But un- 
fortunately the most essential part of Mk.’s evidence on this 
matter has been lost. He gives us the early visit of three 
women to the tomb, and the very important fact that they found 
it open and empty. He tells us how they went in and sawa 
young man in a long white robe, who told them that the Lord 
was risen and would meet His disciples in Galilee, and that this 
appearance and utterance struck them with terror, so that they 
went out of the tomb and fled. And here Mk.’s narrative ends 
abruptly, so abruptly that we conclude that the last leaf (or 
possibly more than one leaf) has been lost from very early times.1 
That he did record at least one appearance of the Risen Lord 
can hardly be doubted. In Mt. xxviii. 1-8 we have a free re- 
production of Mk. xvi. 1-8. It is probable that in vv. 9, το Mt. 
is still making use of Mk.; and it is not improbable that in 
vv. 16-20 we again have Mt.’s reproduction of Mk. Mt. repeats 
almost every word of the command and promise in Mk. xvi. 7, 
and Mt. xxviii. 16-20 records the fulfilment of the command and 
the promise. It is therefore reasonable to believe that Mk. 
recorded the fulfilment of the command and the promise, and 

1 There are three ways of ending the Gospel of Mk. Some authorities 
stop at ‘they were affrighted,’ which cannot have been the original conclusion. 
Others have a short ending, which was evidently written to supply a con- 
clusion, and which no one believes to be genuine. Nearly all our extant 
authorities have the longer ending, which is in most Bibles, which was not 


intended as a conclusion to the Gospel, and the history of which is lost. See 
DCG. ii. pp. 131 ff. 


XXVIII. 1-20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 413 


that it was from him that Mt. derived the substance of vv. 16-20, 
For vv. 9 and ro no more probable source than Mk. can be sug- 
gested. See Allen’s acute discussion of the question, and “ The 
Lost End of Mark’s Gospel” in the Z/rbdert Journal, July 1905. 

No such argument can be used with regard to the intermedi- 
ate paragraph about the hierarchy and the soldiers (11-15). 
Like the paragraph at the end of ch. xxvii., it is peculiar to Mt., 
and it forms a dramatic contrast to that which immediately 
precedes. In the one case, the malignity of the chief priests and 
Pharisees is contrasted with the devotion of the women who had 
seen the last offices paid to the Body of the Crucified Messiah ; 
in the other, the malignity of the chief priests and elders is con- 
trasted with the devotion of the same women, who had come 
again to visit the sepulchre, and who had thus become aware 
that the Body was gone because the Messiah was risen. This 
later paragraph is the natural sequel of the earlier one, and no 
doubt comes from the same source,—traditions that were current 
in Palestine at the time when Mt. compiled this Gospel. It is 
plain, therefore, that Mt. had additional information, and was not 
simply dependent upon Mk. for what he tells us in this last 
chapter. 

The evidence of Lk. is similar, and it may be dated about 
A.D. 75-80. He also was partly (but not wholly) dependent 
upon Mk., and his narrative must be placed side by side with 
that of Mt. in order to form a just estimate of what was con- 
tained in the lost conclusion of Mk. But it is plain that he had 
also very valuable information in addition to Mk. In the 
narrative of the walk to Emmaus he contributes “one of the 
most convincing of the post-Resurrection narratives, for which 
he was probably indebted to first-hand testimony ” (Swete, Zhe 
Appearances of our Lord after the Passion, p. xiii). 

Some fifteen or twenty years later we have the entirely 
independent evidence of the Fourth Gospel, which may still with 
confidence be asserted to be that of a disciple who had been 
intimate with our Lord, and who was probably the Apostle 
S. John. 

nee we have the evidence of the conclusion to the Gospel 
of Mk., as we have it in most Bibles. That it was not written 
by Mk., from whose vocabulary and style it differs very consider- 
ably, and that it was not originally written as a conclusion to his 
Gospel, which it fits very badly, may be regarded as certain. 
But, whether Aristion or some unknown Christian be its author, 
it is good evidence for what was believed early in the second 
century. There are traces of it in Justin Martyr and Irenzus, 
and it is found in almost all the MSS. and Versions that have 
come down to us, the archetypes of which would take us back to 


414 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 1-20 


the first half of the second century. ‘“ We may say with confi- 
dence that its date is earlier than the year 140” (Sanday, The 
Criticism of the Fourth Gospel, p. 241). We adds a remark 
which is important in estimating the value of the evidence for 
the Resurrection which is here summarized :—the twelve verses 
which form the current conclusion to the Gospel of Mk. “imply 
not only the existence, but up to a certain point the authority of 
the Fourth Gospel.” 


It may be freely admitted, that, whether or no the evidence 
for the appearances of our Lord after His death and burial is as 
good as could reasonably be expected, it is not all that we should 
have ourselves desired. It is less full than we should have 
wished, and it is also less harmonious. No one can deny that, 
however highly we may estimate what has come down to us, yet 
additional evidence would be welcome; but, with regard to the 
other point, it must be remembered that very harmonious 
evidence would, for that very reason, have been suspicious. The 
divergencies which are found in the testimony which has come 
down to us (not all of which could be got rid of by additional 
knowledge) are sufficient to show that each witness is telling 
what he believes to be the truth, and that he is not careful to 
make his testimony agree in all particulars with that of other 
witnesses. The divergencies are not sufficient to discredit the 
testimony as a whole, which is in remarkable agreement about 
the main facts. This does not mean that all the discrepancies, 
or apparent discrepancies, are confirmations of the evidence as a 
whole. But it does mean that they do not all of them tend to 
weaken it. Some of them are real difficulties, others are of 
small importance. But each report bears the stamp of honesty 
upon it, and the divergencies are marks of independence. “They 
are just the flaws which we might expect to find in faithful 
reports proceeding from independent witnesses, especially if the 
circumstances were of an unusual and disquieting character, and 
the witnesses persons who were unaccustomed to interpret to 
others the impressions left upon their own minds. . .. The 
process of sifting the Gospel narratives of the Appearances will 
bring to light a great preponderance of solid fact, which can be 
set aside only by the stubborn scepticism that is born of 
unworthy presuppositions” (Swete). The Christian Church 
exists, and has existed and grown since the year of the 
Crucifixion. So enormous a fact cannot be explained without 
an adequate cause, and it is impossible to find an adequate 
cause if the Resurrection of Christ from the tomb is rejected as 
a fiction. 

Mt. begins his narrative with a confused note of time, the 


XXVIII. 1, 2] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 415 


result of condensing the narrative of Mk. Mk. gives two events, 
each with its note of time ;—the buying of the spices, when the 
sabbath was past, #e. on Saturday evening ; and the coming to 
use the spices, very early on the first day of the week, ἀξ. on 
Sunday morning. Mt. omits the buying of the spices, just as he 
omits the buying of the linen (xxvii. 59), and yet keeps two 
notes of time. His first time-note (ὀψὲ δὲ σαββάτων) ought to 
mean ‘late on the sabbath,’ which would be before sunset on 
Saturday afternoon.! Even if the expression stood alone, it 
would be almost incredible that Mt. should intend to contradict 
every other tradition about the Resurrection, and assert that it 
took place on the sabbath. The weekly celebration of the first 
day of the week, even without the testimony of the other 
Gospels, would suffice to refute this. But Mt.’s own words 
suffice to correct such an interpretation, for he goes on to say, 
‘as it began to dawn towards day one of the week,’ #e. near 
daybreak on Sunday. Elsewhere, when Mk. gives two notes of 
time (i. 32, ii. 20, vi. 35, xiv. 30), Mt. omits one of them (viii. 16, 
ix. 15, Xiv. 15, xxvi. 34). Here, where Mk. gives only one time- 
note for the visit of the women, Mt. gives two, and thereby 
causes confusion. 

Mk. tells us that on this occasion a third woman accompanied 
the two that had watched the sepulchre on Friday evening. 
This third was Salome, the mother of James and John, the sons 
of Zebedee. Mk., who tells us that these women had bought 
spices on Saturday night, says that they came on Sunday 
morning ‘that they might anoint Him.’ Mt. says that they 
came ‘to see the sepulchre.’ This change would be suggested, 
not merely by the omission of the buying of the spices, but by 
the sealing and guarding of the tomb, for the guards would not 
allow them to come near the tomb, much less to enter it. But 
the women knew nothing about the setting of a watch, and 
there was no need to alter ‘that they might anoint Him.’ 

Mt. once more (2) tells us of an earthquake which is not 
mentioned by the others; comp. viii. 24, xxvil. 51. In each 
case it is possible that the Evangelist (or his source) is conjectur- 
ing a cause for the extraordinary phenomena which he has to 
relate. There is a great storm on the lake; the veil of the 
temple is rent in twain; the large stone is rolled away from the 
door of the sepulchre ; and on each occasion an earthquake may 
be part of the explanation. Omitting viil. 24 as doubtful, for 
the ‘great quaking’ (σεισμὸς μέγας) may refer to the water only, 
we may compare the two instances about which there is no 

1 Mt. must be using ὀψέ in the sense of ‘after,’—‘ after the sabbath’; but 


a clear example of such use seems to be wanting. See J. H. Moulton, 
Gram. of N.T. Gr. p. 72. 


416 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 2-5 


question. In both the earthquake is accompanied by something 
supernatural ; in the one by the resurrection of the bodies of the 
saints, in the other by the descent of an Angel, who seems to be 
regarded as the cause of the earthquake. ‘ And, behold,! there 
was a great earthquake: for an Angel of the Lord descended 
from heaven, and came and rolled away the stone, and sat upon 
1. In Mk. the women find that the stone, from which they 
anticipated difficulty, is already rolled away, and the Angel is 
Mt.’s explanation of the removal. Lk., like Mk., states that the 
women found the stone rolled away, and, like Mk., offers no 
explanation. How readily Angelic agency might be assumed in 
such a case is shown by the fact that a modern commentator on 
Mk. xv. 38 assures us that the Temple-veil “ must have been 
torn asunder by angel hands.” The appearance of an Angel 
(Mt., Mk.), or of two Angels (Lk., Jn.), at the tomb rests upon 
the testimony of the women who reported their experiences. 
The descent of an Angel who rolled away the stone was witnessed 
by no one; it is an hypothetical explanation of a known fact. 
The earthquake may have been suggested by the quaking of the 
guards (ἐσείσθησαν οἱ τηροῦντες), although their terror is said to 
have been caused by the appearance of the Angel; but the 
earthquake may have taken place and have been felt by the 
women after they set out. 


It is worth while contrasting the narrative in the apocryphal Gospel of 
Peter, which may be assigned to about the middle of the second century. It 
is evidently based upon the four Canonical Gospels, which it sometimes 
abbreviates, and sometimes greatly enlarges. Where it does the latter, the 
writer is probably inventing what seemed to him to be probable. There are 
few, if any, places in which it is likely that he is preserving an independent 
tradition of what actually took place, although he may be borrowing from 
uncanonical literature. 

““ And in the night in which the Lord’s day was dawning, when the 
soldiers were on guard two and two in each watch, there was a great voice in 
heaven, and they saw the heavens opened, and ¢wo men descend thence, with 
a great Light around them, and drawing near to the tomb. But that stone 
which had been cast at the door rolled of itself and withdrew to one side, and 
the tomb was opened, and both the young men entered. When, therefore, 
those soldiers saw this, they awakened the centurion and the elders,—for 
they also were present on guard. And as they were relating what they saw, 
again they behold ¢hvee men (comp. Dan iil. 24, 35) come out of the tomb, 
and wo of them supporting the one, and a cross following them; and the 
head of each of the two reached up to heaven, but that of Him who was led 
by them by the hand was higher than the heavens. And they heard a voice 
from the heavens which said: ‘ Hast Thou preached to them that are asleep ?’ 
And a response was heard from the cross: ‘Yea.’ Those men therefore 
discussed with one another as to going and reporting these things to Pilate. 


1 καὶ ἰδού is very frequent in Mt. and Lk., who has it here; but it is not 
found anywhere in Mk. Here both Mt. and Lk. treat the narrative of Mk. 
with great freedom. Evidently there were different traditions of what took 
place. 


XXVIII. 2-5] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 417 


And while they were still considering, again the heavens appeared opened, 
and a man descended and entered into the sepulchre. When those who 
were with the centurion by night saw these things, they hastened to Pilate, 
leaving the tomb which they were guarding, and related all which they had 
seen, bein in an agony of terror, and saying: ‘ Truly He was God’s Son.’” 
Comp. ‘ ‘Gabriel the Angel of the Holy Spirit, and Michael, the chief of the 
holy Angels, on the third day will open the sepulchre: and the Beloved 
sitting on their shoulders will come forth” (heeened of Isaiah, iii. 16). 


In his characteristic way, Cornelius ἃ Lapide comments on 
these two earthquakes (xxvii. 51, xxviii. 2): “The earth, which 
trembled with horror at the Death of Christ, as it were leaped 
for joy at His Resurrection.” We may also compare the mention 
of ‘an Angel of the Lord’ (ἄγγελος Κυρίου) at the beginning of 
this Gospel (i. 18) and this mention of one at the close of it. 
Each is charged with a message to dispel fear: μὴ φοβηθῇς to 
Joseph, μὴ φοβεῖσθε ὑμεῖς to the women. The Incarnation of 
the Son of God is the announcement in the one case, His 
Resurrection from the grave in the other. In the latter case 
the emphatic pronoun must not be overlooked. ‘Fear not ye’ 
is said in reference to the terrified watchers.! It was fitting that 
they should be stricken with fear; but there was no need for fear 
in those who had been the devoted servants of the Messiah 
during His lifetime, and had come to minister to Him once 
more after His death. 

The narrative implies that the Angel had removed the stone 
before the women arrived. He is represented as sitting upon it 
in reference to what is said in xxvii. 61. On Friday evening the 
women are left ‘sitting over against the sepulchre’ and watching 
it. When they return early on Sunday morning to watch it once 
more (1), it is a heavenly watcher that has taken their place; 
and ‘he was sitting’ (ἐκάθητο) there, when the women arrived. 
He is described as Angels are described in the O.T. (Ezek. i. 13 ; 
Dan. x. 6; 2 Mac. ili. 26). The whole is entirely in harmony 
with Jewish modes of thought, and in essentials may be in 
harmony with fact. Such passages as ΧΙ]. 39, 41, 49, Xvi. 27, 
XViii, 10, XXil. 30, Xxiv. 31, 36, XxV. 31, 41, Xxvi. 53 cannot easily 
be explained as mere accommodations to Jewish modes of 
thought, or as cases in which Christ’s words have been mis- 
understood and misreported by those who heard them. The 
sayings are too numerous and too varied for that, and some 
are in Mk. and Lk. as well as in Mt. Moreover, Lk. adds 
several which are not in Mt. or Mk. See notes on ‘Thy will 
be done, as in heaven, so on earth’ (vi. 10). And Jn. (i. 52) 


1 Once more we have in the Testaments a passage which in some respects 
may be read as a parallel: ‘* When, therefore, the Lord looketh upon us, all 
of us are shaken; yea, the heavens, ‘and the earth, and the abysses are shaken 
at the presence of His majesty” (Zevé iii. 9). 


27 


' 418 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 5. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 2-5 


adds one more. We therefore need caution in setting aside 
certain details in this narrative as due to notions current among 
the Jews rather than to experience of what actually took place. 

In the law-courts it is a common experience that even 
educated and dispassionate witnesses have difficulty in dis- 
tinguishing between what they actually saw and heard and what 
they inferred from what they saw and heard. They are apt, 
quite honestly, to give their inferences as facts. And uneducated 
and excited witnesses have difficulty in recalling, and expressing 
with anything like accuracy, their experiences during actions at 
which they were certainly present, and which they desire to 
report faithfully. This is specially likely to be the case if the 
experiences have been of an unusual character. It is manifest 
that some extraordinary phenomena were perceived by a number 
of women on the morning of Easter Day. These emotional 
witnesses, excited by what they had experienced, would hardly 
know themselves what it was that they had perceived. Perhaps 
the experiences had not in all cases been the same. Certainly 
not all would agree as to what had been seen and heard. Still 
more certainly those to whom each of them told her experiences 
would not repeat the story with perfect accuracy. In this way 
the differing narratives in the Synoptic Gospels can be reasonably 
explained. “It is not surprising if, with the exception of the 
evidently genuine reminiscences of the fourth Gospel, the story 
of the women has reached us in a less certain form than the 
rest of the narratives of the forty days. . . . The uncertainties 
which attend the Synoptic accounts of the doings of the women 
at the tomb are not greater than we might have expected, and 
cast no shadow of suspicion on the general truth of the narrative” 
(Swete, Appearances of our Lord, p. 12). 

Let us confine ourselves to the narrative in Mt. We can 
distinguish hypothesis from tradition of what took place. The 
women on their way to the sepulchre in the dark have sensations 
which they attribute to an earthquake. On their arrival, they 
find the stone, about the removal of which they had been anxious, 
already rolled away. They are addressed by a being, whom they 
suppose to be an Angel, who shows them that the tomb is empty, 
and assures them that the Lord is risen and will be found in 
Galilee. In a transport of mingled fear and joy they hurry away 
to report what they have seen and heard. On their way they 
see the Lord Himself, who confirms what they have just heard. 
That is the substance of what one or more of them related as to 
what took place. 

They, or some of those to whom they told their story, drew 
certain inferences and stated them as facts. There was, they 
said, an earthquake. Then what caused it? and how was the 


XXVIII. 2-5] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 410 


stone rolled away? The Angel who spoke to the women at the 
tomb must have done both. Again, some knew that a guard 
had been set to watch the tomb. How was it that the soldiers 
allowed the women to approach? The Angel had frightened 
them away. How had the Angel come thither? Of course 
he had descended from heaven. Without asserting that these 
inferences are incorrect, we are justified in separating them from 
what is given as the experiences of those who were there. No 
one professed to have seen the Angel descend, or produce the 
earthquake, or roll away the stone. Indeed the earthquake may 
be a separate hypothesis to account for the removal of the stone, 
or may be the means by which the Angel rolled it away, or may 
have been thought of as an appropriate accompaniment to such 
wonderful facts. 

It is important to notice what comes out clearly in all four 
narratives. No one professes to know at what hour or in what 
manner the Resurrection took place; but, when the first visitors 
arrived at the place early on Sunday morning, ‘¢he third day’ 
from the Crucifixion, according to Jewish ways of reckoning, 
the tomb was empty. Even O. Holtzmann, who rejects the theory 
of a physical resuscitation of Christ’s Body, admits the evidence 
for the empty sepulchre as too strong to be rejected. ‘There 
is no reason to doubt that the women could not carry out their 
purpose, simply because they found the grave empty. . . . This 
astounding fact, the emptiness of the grave, may well have excited 
them to such a degree that they could see an Angel and hear 
his message” (Life of Jesus, p. 497). Whether or no that result 
is probable, the recognition that the emptiness of the grave on 
the third day must be admitted on critical grounds is important. 
“But that the body was stolen by the disciples is utterly out of 
the question.” As a more probable alternative it is suggested 
that, as soon as the sabbath was over, Joseph of Arimathzxa 
“ must have been careful to have the body buried in some other 
place,” because he “‘was not disposed to have a crucified man 
to lie permanently beside the dead of his own family.1 Such 
seems to be the simplest explanation of this secret transaction” 
(pp. 498, 9). Yet it is admitted that, “in the case of a person 
so extraordinary as Jesus, even the greatest miracle might be 
accepted as an actual occurrence, and it might not seem 
incredible that the dead body, after having been laid in the 
rock-grave, was resuscitated and restored to life by God” (p. 500). 


1 The tomb was a new one; there were no dead there; and, if Joseph 
had any such thought, he could secure this result by directing that neither he 
nor any of his family were to be buried there. Is it credible that Joseph 
would have removed and hidden the Body, or that, if he did, no tradition of 
this transaction should have survived ? 


420 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 2-8 


It must be remembered that our earliest witness definitely states 
that Christ ‘hath been raised on ¢he third day according to the 
scriptures’ (1 Cor. xv. 4). The mention of the third day is 
meaningless, except to one who believes that the tomb was left 
ata particular time. Ifall that is true is that our Lord’s spirit 
continued to exist after He had died on the Cross, then to say 
that He ‘was raised’ is a strange exaggeration; but to say that 
He ‘was raised on the third day’ is an absurdity. All the large 
amount of evidence respecting a definite date, such as ‘after 
three days,’ or ‘on the third day,’ is a strong confirmation of the 
otherwise strongly attested fact that a day or two after the 
entombment the grave was found to be empty.1 ; 

A writer who rejects, not only the resuscitation of Christ’s 
Body, but the fact of the empty tomb, says: ‘‘ How early the 
disciples of Jesus became convinced that He had been raised 
from the dead, cannot be ascertained with certainty. There 
seems to be no good reason for doubting that the conception 
goes back to the immediate disciples of Jesus” (Schmidt, Zhe 
Prophet of Nazareth, p. 321). It would be hard to find good 
reason for doubting this, in the face of the evidence which has 
come down to us. But if the immediate disciples of Jesus 
were convinced that He had been raised from the dead, and 
this in spite of the despondency caused by His death (Lk. xxiv. 
17-21), then at once we have a number of witnesses whose 
testimony cannot easily be set aside. 

The changes which Mt. (7, 8) makes in Mk. xvi. 7, 8,— 
the last verses in which we can compare the two Gospels, are 
full of interest. He makes the charge to the women more 
urgent by inserting ‘quickly’ (ταχύ : comp. v. 25) and changing 
‘even as He told you’ into ‘behold, I have told you.’? He 
substitutes his favourite πορευθεῖσαι for ὑπάγετε, inserts his 
favourite καὶ ἰδού and ἰδού, and repeats the fact that ‘He is 
risen from the dead’ as part of the message to the disciples. 
On the other hand, he omits ‘and Peter’ after ‘tell His 
disciples.’ In narrating the departure of the women he again 
inserts ‘quickly’ (ταχύ), and says that ‘they ran’ (ἔδραμον) to 
deliver the message. ‘This is a correction of Mk., who says 
that in their first fear they told no one anything. Mt. knows 
that the women did communicate the glad tidings, and therefore 


1 The story that was circulated by the Jews, that the disciples had stolen 
the Body, shows that there was no possibility of denying that the tomb had 
been seen to be empty when the stone was removed. See Wellhausen, Das 
Evan. Matt. p. 150. Jerome’s comment on the Angel’s words: ‘ He is not 
here . . . come see the place where He lay,’ is to the point: z¢, s¢ mezs 
verbts non creditis, vacuo credatis sepulchro. 

2 Comp. xxiv. 25; Jn. iv. 35. A few inferior authorities have here ‘even 
as He told you,’ and some editors conjecture ἰδοὺ εἶπεν ὑμῖν, 


XXVIII. 7-9] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 421 


for the trembling and astonishment and fear which Mk. records 
he substitutes ‘fear and great joy.’ Fear might incline them 
to say nothing, but the great joy of hearing that the Lord was 
alive again made them hasten to deliver the message. 

The omission of ‘and Peter’ after ‘tell His disciples’ is 
remarkable; all the more so because Mt. elsewhere shows a 
special interest in the ‘first’ of the Apostles (x. 2, xiv. 28-31, . 
XV. 15, xvi, 16-19). Perhaps the simplest explanation is that 
in the lost conclusion of Mk. there was no mention of any 
special appearance to Peter, and therefore Mt. omitted the 
special mention of him in the Angelic message. We know 
from our earliest authority (1 Cor. xv. 5) that there was a 
manifestation ‘to Cephas’; and this is confirmed incidentally 
(and therefore all the more convincingly) by S. Paul’s companion 
(Lk. xxiv. 34), who says that Cleopas and his comrade, on their 
return from Emmaus to Jerusalem, were greeted with the joyous 
declaration that the report that the Lord had risen must be true, 
for He had ‘appeared to Simon.’ S. Paul probably was told this 
by S. Peter himself when he went ‘to visit Cephas’ (Gal. i. 18) ; 
but it is quite possible that Mt. found no mention of any meeting 
between Peter and His Master in the concluding portion of Mk. 

Did these last verses of Mk. contain the meeting between 
Christ and the women, which Mt. narrates (9, 10) as taking 
place while the women were on their way to tell the disciples? 
The probability is that they did. The meeting is closely con- 
nected with what is narrated Mk. xvi. 1-8, and it fits better to 
the narrative of Mk. than to that of Mt. Mk. says that the 
women were too frightened to deliver the message. Then 
Jesus appears to them, calmis their fears, and repeats the 
substance of the message. The reason for His appearing to 
them is manifest. But in Mt. no such reason is manifest. Joy 
outweighs their fear, and they are hurrying to deliver the 
message. That, of course, would not render Christ’s appearing 
to them improbable; but the fact remains, that in the one 
narrative we have an explanation of Christ’s appearing to the 
women which is absent from the other. But perhaps, with 
Dr. Swete, we ought to recognize the possibility thai, “ notwith- 
standing the manifest differences between the details of this 
story and those of the appearance to Mary, it may reasonably 
be doubted whether the two narratives do not relate to the 
same incident” (p. 11).1_ The statement here, that ‘they held 

1See also Wright, Synopsis, p. 174: ‘* We believe that an epitome of 
this appearance (to Mary of Magdala) passed from S. John’s oral teaching 
not only into the pseudo-Mark (xvi. 9) but also into 8, Matthew (xxviii. 
9, 10).” In any case, ‘‘there is no reason to doubt that the Gospel [of 
Mark] went on to describe some of the appearances of Jesus to the disciples 


alter the Resurrection” (Burkitt, 7715,, April 1904, p. 342). 


422 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO 8. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 9, 10 


His feet’ (ἐκράτησαν αὐτοῦ τοὺς πόδας), may have some con- 
nexion with the rebuke, ‘Hold Me not’ or ‘Cling not to Me’ 
(My μου ἅπτου), in Jn. xx. 17. And in both narratives we have 
the message to Christ’s ‘brethren’ (Jn. xx. 17). The expression 
is remarkable, however we interpret it. It may mean our Lord’s 
own brethren (xii. 46, xiil. 55); or it may be a gracious synonym 
for His disciples: ‘for whosoever shall do the will of My Father 
who is in heaven, he is My brother’ (xii. 50). What is added 
in Jn xx. 17, ‘I ascend to My Father and your Father,’ as a 
message to these brethren, looks as if the disciples were meant. 
Moreover, the charge of Christ to the women seems to be 
given as a repetition of the charge given by the Angel (6, 7, 16). 


Whether Mt. took the account of this meeting between the Lord and the 
women from Mk. or some other source, he has left on it the marks of his 
own style. We again have καὶ ἰδού and τότε, as often, and his favourite 
expression, ‘they worshipped Him’ (προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ) : comp. ii. 2, 8, 11, 
vill. 2, ix. 18, xiv. 33, xv. 25, xviii. 26. 

The words with which the AV. has made us familiar, ‘as they went to 
tell His disciples,’ are no part of the true text. They are wanting in NBD, 
Latt. Copt. Syrr. Arm. ‘The Lord’ in ‘come see the place where the Lord 
lay’ is also wanting in authority. Both insertions are found in AC LIT ATI. 
Mt. never, in his narratives, uses 6 Κύριος of our Lord. 

The translation, ‘All hail,’ for Χαίρετε is not quite satisfactory. It 
makes the greeting rather unusual; whereas Χαίρετε probably represents the 
usual greeting. It may have been our Lord’s purpose to convince them that 
He was the Jesus that they had known, and that He employed the usual 
greeting for that reason. It is the word used by Judas in his treachery 
(xxvi. 49) and by the soldiers in their mockery (xxvii. 29). 


XXVIII. 11-15. Zhe Lie, Paid for and Propagated 


The verses which follow (11-15) no doubt come from the 
same source as xxvil. 62-66, and are a continuation of that 
narrative, to which also xxvill. 4 belongs. Nothing is said 
about the way in which the women delivered their message, 
nor about the way in which it was received, but only that the 
guard came into the city and reported what they had experi- 
enced to the hierarchy, while the women were still on their 
way. S. John tells us that Mary Magdalen came and told the 
disciples that she had seen the Lord, but he does not say how 
the disciples received the news. In the appendix to Mk. we 
read that ‘she went and told them that had been with Him, 
as they mourned and wept,’ and that they disbelieved her 
statements. Lk. says much the same of the message of the 
women (xxiv. 11). We may infer from the silence of Mt. on 
this point that there was nothing. in Mk. about the Apostles’ 
reception of the message. But the evidence that we have 
shows how incorrect it is to say that “even before making such 


— LL SS δι νμϑυννννο 


XXVIII. 11-15} PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 423 


a discovery [that the grave was empty], they certainly expected 
the resurrection of Jesus” (O. Holtzmann, p. 497). Even 
S. John did not infer from the disappearance of the Body that 
the Lord had risen, until he had entered the tomb and seen 
the way in which the linen cloths and the napkin were lying 
(Jn. xx. 6-9). Christ’s predictions about His rising again had 
never been understood (Mk. ix. 10, 32; Mt. xvii. 23; Lk. ix. 
45); and the disciples had no expectation of seeing their Master 
again alive (Lk. xxiv. 17-21; [Mk.] xvi. 10-13). The first 
statements to the contrary, so far from being anticipated, were 
rejected as too good to be true. 

This story about the return ot the guard and their being 
bribed by the chief priests, like the preceding one about the 
hierarchy asking Pilate for a guard, forms a marked contrast 
to the narrative which immediately precedes it. In both cases 
the malignity of the foes of the Messiah is contrasted with the 
devotion of His friends. In the one, we have the affectionate 
watch of the women who had ministered to Him followed by 
the hostile watch of the soldiers who had arrested and mocked 
Him. In the other, we have the faithful women hastening to 
tell His disciples the joyous news of His Resurrection, but 
anticipated by the heathen soldiers hastening to tell His enemies 
the amazing news of the tomb opened and found empty. There 
probably was no formal assembly of the Sanhedrin, any more 
than xii. 14 or xxii. 15, where the same expression of ‘taking 
counsel’ is used. The combination of chief priests and elders 
does not constitute a meeting of the Sanhedrin (xxvii. 3, 12, 20), 
and in so urgent a case the summoning of the whole body 
would have taken too much time. The soldiers must be dealt 
with at once, lest the true story should get abroad; and those 
who had bribed Judas to betray the Messiah now bribe the 
watch to deny His Resurrection. But, whereas a small sum 
was enough to induce an Apostle to sell his Master, they had 
to give ‘large money’ to induce Roman soldiers to tell a lie 
that might incriminate themselves! They might be put to 
death for sleeping at their post. Hence the promise that, if 
they are prosecuted for it, or (as we might say) if they are tried 
by court-martial before the governor (ἐὰν ἀκουσθῇ τοῦτο ἐπὶ τοῦ 
ἡγεμόνος), they will know how to manage him, and to free the 
soldiers from all anxiety.” 

1 The use of ἱκανός in the sense of ‘a considerable amount of’ is common 
in Lk. and Acts, but is not found elsewhere in Mt. and only once in Mk. 
(x. 46). Itis remarkable that legend has not identified the money paid to 
the soldiers with that which was flung back by Judas. To make the same 
coins do the unholy work on both occasions would have been truly dramatic. 


2 There is little doubt that ἐπὶ τοῦ ἡγεμόνος means ‘ before the Procurator,’ 
i.e. as judge; and therefore ἀκουσθῇ must have a judicial sense, of a case 


424 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XX VIII. 11-15 


This lie about the disciples having stolen the Lord’s Body, 
in order to maintain that He had risen and ascended to heaven, 
was still in circulation when this Gospel was written, not 
everywhere among the Jews, but in certain quarters (παρὰ 
᾿Ιουδαίοις, not παρὰ τοῖς “I., though D has the article). Justin 
Martyr says that the Jews sent out special emissaries to dis- 
seminate this falsehood (Z7y. 108; comp. 17); and Tertullian 
also alludes to it, saying sarcastically: “This is He whom His 
disciples secretly stole away, or the gardener took away that 
his lettuces might not be injured by the crowds of visitors” 
(de Spec. 30). Whether, as is probable, Justin and Tertullian 
had independent knowledge of the propagation of this slander, 
or they are simply repeating what Mt. states here, is not quite 
certain. In any case, Mt. begins and ends the Gospel, which 
is specially intended for Jews, with a refutation of well-known 
Jewish falsehoods, which were employed to discredit the 
foundations of the Christian faith. In his first chapter he 
shows that the foul stories about the Birth of Christ are 
monstrous falsehoods ; in his last chapter he shows the same 
respecting the attempts to deny His Resurrection. Jesus was 
not the son of a human father who had seduced Mary, for 
Joseph himself was convinced by Divine revelation that she 
was with child by the operation of the Holy Spirit. The Body 
of Jesus was not stolen by His disciples; that was a lie specially 
paid for by His enemies; it rose from the tomb and was seen 
alive by many of those who had known Him best. 

And it was a lie which could deceive none but those who 
were willing to be deceived. How could the soldiers know 
what had taken place while they were so fast asleep that the 
opening of the sepulchre and the removal of the Body had not 
awakened them? The lie involved the fatal admission.that the 
tomb had been found empty, and at the same time gave no 
reasonable explanation of that significant fact. And with this 
foolish and dastardly falsehood, hastily adopted and hastily paid 
for, the history of those who for centuries had sat on Moses’ 
seat (xxiil. 2) closes. The duty of teaching Israel and ruling 
Israel has passed into other and better hands. They had had 
the light, and had so abused it that it had become darkness to 
them; and how great was the darkness (vi. 23)! They had 
had Moses and the Prophets, who wrote of the Christ, but they 
had not believed their writings. And now they refused to be 
persuaded, though one rose from the dead. They had taken 
care that the tomb should be shut in all safety, with the keepers 


being heard in court. Note the emphatic pronouns: ‘ We will persuade the 
Procurator, and you will have no need to be anxious.’ For the ἐπέ comp. 
Mk, xiii. 9; Acts xxiv. 19, 20, xxv. ἢ: 


XXVIII. 11-15] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 425 


standing at the door; and when it was opened, no man was 
found therein (Acts v. 23). Instead of welcoming the joyous 
truth that ‘He is not here; He is risen,’ they decided to pay 
handsomely for the propagation of what they knew to be false. 

But the Evangelist will not end his Gospel with the last 
insults that were framed against the Messiah by His unrelenting 
and unscrupulous enemies,—insults which were still repeated 
by unbelieving Jews in the writer’s own time. In the Gospel 
of Nicodemus, Annas and Caiaphas say that the disciples had 
bribed the soldiers to allow them to take the Body from the 
tomb. In the Toledoth Jeschu, a Jewish book full of similar 
statements, it is said that Judas, fearing that the disciples might 
take away the Body, removed it himself and buried it in the 
bed of a river. From malice of this kind the Evangelist passes 
on to tell very briefly how Christ’s disciples obeyed the message 
which He had sent to them, and to give a condensed report of 
the gracious words which He spoke to His Church while He 
still remained in a visible form on the earth. His enemies are 
mentioned no more. They have twice been defeated in their 
attempts to prevent the triumph which they prepared fomthe 
Messiah when they compassed His death; and now the doom 
which He pronounced upon them only a few days before He 
surrendered Himself into their hands may be left to work. The 
Lord of the vineyard, to whom they have been so faithless, will 
destroy them and will give the vineyard to others—even to a 
nation bringing forth the fruits thereof (xxi. 40-43). Yet even 
now all is not hopeless. The doom on the Chosen People is 
irrevocable ; but those members of it who can ‘bring forth fruit 
worthy of repentance’ (iii. 8) may escape the coming wrath. 
Along with ‘all the nations’ (19) Jews may find admission to 
the Kingdom, not by descent from Abraham, nor by observance 
of their own traditions, but by becoming disciples of Him whom 
they ignorantly crucified (Acts ill. 17, xxi. 20). 


XXVIII. 16-20. Zhe Appearance to the Eleven om the 
Mountain. The Great Claim; the Great Charge; and 
the Great Promise. 


This brief narrative is evidently given as the Messiah’s 
fulfilment of the promise made at the Last Supper (xxvi. 32 = 
Mk. xiv. 28), and as the disciples’ response to the message sent 
to them by the Angel on Easter morning (xxvili. 7 = Mk. xvi. 7) 
and repeated by the Messiah Himself (10). He tells them to 
return to Galilee, and that they shall see Him there; they go, 
and they do see Him. Whether Mk. gave any narrative 
corresponding to this is, as has been shown, uncertain. It ig 


426 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 16-20 


quite possible that Mt., like the writer of the appendix to Mk. 
(xvi. 14-18), knew that there had been appearances to the whole 
of the Apostolic body, and gives a representative narrative which 
contains a mixture of details. Mt. has done this with regard 
to other utterances of the Messiah, which, in five different cases, 
he has gathered together into one discourse. And it is quite 
possible that he has done the same in the short farewell 
discourse with which he concludes his Gospel. The triplet 
which he constructs, consisting of a claim, a charge, and a 
promise, may not have been spoken in this form on one and 
the same occasion. The charge, without the claim or the 
promise, is given in different words, but with the same meaning, 
in the appendix to Mk.: ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach 
the Gospel to the whole creation.’ 

On the other hand, the mention of ‘the mountain where 
Jesus had appointed them’ (τὸ ὄρος οὗ ἐτάξατο αὐτοῖς ὁ ᾿Ιησοῦς), 
points to a definite occasion, as also does ‘then to all the 
Apostles’ (1 Cor. xv. 7); and, while admitting the possibility 
that words spoken on a different cccasion may be included 
here, we need not suppose that Mt. here gives us an imaginative 
account of what might have taken place at one of the appearances 
in Galilee. ‘The words recorded here are beyond the imagina- 
tion of the Evangelist, and in this respect are in marked contrast 
to some of the words attributed to our Lord by the writer of the 
appendix, e.g. ‘They shall take up serpents, and if they drink 
any deadly thing, it shall in no wise hurt them.’ The wonderful 
fulness of meaning, which characterizes all three of the sayings 
that are recorded here, is a strong guarantee for their author- 
ship. Each one of them is capable of indefinite development 
and application. ‘Never maz thus spake’ (Jn. vii. 46). 

There remains the difficulty that Lk. and Jn. tell us that our 
Lord appeared to the Eleven in Jerusalem, and Jn. tells us that 
they did not obey the charge to go to Galilee for at least a week. 
There is also the fact that Lk. says nothing about any appear- 
ances in Galilee. Possibly the traditions respecting these events 
became somewhat confused before they were written down; and 
certainly our ignorance of the details, and of the motives which 
guided the Evangelists, is too great to allow us to be dogmatic 
either in charging them with errors or in explaining what seem 
to us to be such. The narratives have the stamp of honesty, 
and there is a good deal which cannot have been invented. See 
Wright, Syzopsis, p. 174; Westcott, introductory note to Jn. xx. 

We do not know when the Lord appointed the mountain as 
a place for the Eleven to meet Him when they returned to 
Galilee ; nor do we know what place is meant by ‘the mountain.’ 
But about the latter point we may reasonably conjecture that 


XXVIII. 16-20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 427 


some spot above the lake is intended. After feeding the five 
thousand near the lake, Jesus ‘went up into /he mountain apart 
to pray’ (xiv. 23). After healing the daughter of the Canaanitish 
woman, Jesus ‘came nigh unto the sea of Galilee; and He went 
up into ¢e mountain, and sat there’ (xv. 29). It can hardly 
have been very high ground, for the multitudes brought lame, 
maimed, and others and cast them at His feet to be healed. 
Comp. v. 1, viii. 1; Mk. iii, 13. It is perhaps possible that 
there was some particular spot in this hilly district near the lake 
that was known in the circle of Christ’s disciples as ‘the 
mountain.’ Our Lord would be likely to appoint a familiar 
spot, and we know of no other occasion on which He appointed 
a definite place for meeting Him after the Resurrection. In 
most of the appearances those who saw Him were not expecting 
to see Him. 


There are several marks of Mt.’s hand in the narrative: ἐπορεύθησαν, 
προσελθών, πορευθέντες, μαθητεύσατε, καὶ ἰδού. And there is not much doubt 
about the text, not even in ver. 19: for πορευθέντες some Western texts have 
πορεύεσθε, which makes no difference to the sense. 


‘They worshipped; but some doubted.’ There are one or 
two uncertainties here. Who doubted? And what did they 
doubt? All the Eleven fell on their knees and _ prostrated 
themselves. Although no one else has been mentioned, it is 
probable that others were present, and that among these others 
were the doubters. The doubt might be as to whether Jesus 
was risen from the dead, or as to whether He whom they now 
saw was Jesus. The latter seems to be more probable; and, if 
we assume that only the Eleven were present, the latter must 
be the meaning, for the Eleven had already seen Him in 
Jerusalem.1 Comp. Lk. xxiv. rr. From all the Gospels it is 
clear that the disciples were disposed to be sceptical (xxiv. 23) 
rather than credulous about the Resurrection. 

Once before in this Gospel (xiv. 31, 33) we have had doubt 
and adoration in close proximity in reference to the Messiah, 
and there the same verbs are used as here. When Peter began 
to sink in the water and cried out for help, our Lord rebuked 
him: ‘O thou of little faith, wherefore didst thou doubt?’ (eis τί 
ἐδίστασας ;). And when they had entered the boat, those who 
were in it ‘worshipped Him’ (προσεκύνησαν αὐτῷ). These are 
the only two occasions on which the Apostles are said to have 
worshipped the Lord. In both instances the attitude is very 
natural; there, because of His power over wind and wave; 
here, because of the awe inspired by His return from the grave. 


11s ‘when they saw Him’ (ἰδόντες αὐτόν) meant to refer back to ‘and 
here shall they see Me’ (κἀκεῖ με ὄψονται) Comp. vz, 7, 10. 


428 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXVIII 17, 18 


But Jesus approached them and addressed them, that they 
might be assured that it was really Himself, and that they 
had nothing to fear. Comp. [Mk.] xvi. 11-14. 

‘There has been given to Me all authority in heaven and 
upon earth.’ Again one asks, Who is it that dares thus con- 
fidently to make this amazing claim? Who is it that utters it 
as if it were a simple matter of fact about which there was no 
question? Not merely power or might (δύναμις), such as a great 
conqueror might claim, but ‘authority’ (ἐξουσία), as something 
which is His by right, conferred upon Him by One who has the 
right to bestow it (Rev. 11. 27). And ‘a// authority,’ embracing 
everything over which rule and dominion can be exercised ; and 
that not only ‘upon earth,’ which would be an authority over- 
whelming in its extensiveness, but also ‘in heaven.? Human 
thought loses itself in the attempt to understand what must be 
comprehended in such authority as this. Nothing less than the 
Divine government of the whole universe and of the Kingdom 
of Heaven has been given to the Risen Lord. In more than 
one Epistle, S. Paul piles up term upon term in order to try 
to express the honour and glory and power which the Father 
has bestowed upon the Son whom He has raised from the dead. 
The glorified Christ is ‘above every principality and authority 
and power and dominion, and every name that is named, not 
only in this age, but also in that which is to come’ (Eph. i. 21 ; 
comp. Col. i. 16-21; Phil. 11. 9-11). Nevertheless, with all his 
fulness of language, the Apostle does not get beyond, for it is 
impossible to get beyond, the majestic, inexhaustible reach of 
the simple statement which Christ, with such serenity, makes 
here. 

No mere human being in his senses ever made such a claim 
as this. Nor did the Son of God, during His ministry as the 
Son of Man, make any such claim.! He taught in a way that 
made those who heard Him feel that He had authority greater 
than the official teachers of the nation (vii. 29), and which forced 
His adversaries to take notice of it (xxi. 27). He proved by His 
successes that He had authority to heal all manner of disease 
and sickness among the people (iv. 23, ix. 35), to cleanse lepers 
(viil.' 2, 2, ΧΙ: δὴ, to cast out demons (iv. "24, will: 32) x11 fee. 
xvil. 18), and to raise the dead. He gave the Twelve authority 
over unclean spirits, to cast them out, and to heal all manner 

1 Perhaps the nearest approach to this is xi. 27 ; Jn. iii. 35; but possibly 
that was spoken by anticipation, and this is far more definite. That it was 
because He had suffered and died that He received this authority is plain from 
other passages of Scripture: Phil. ii. 8,9; Heb. ii. 9; comp. 1 Pet. i. 21 and 
Hort’s note. In Rev. i. 5, He is not only 6 πρωτότοκος τῶν νεκρῶν but also 


ὁ ἄρχων τῶν βασιλέων τῆς yijs, Supreme over all rulers, including those who 
had slain Him, Comp. the LXX. of Dan, vii, 14. 


XXVIII. 19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 429 


of disease and sickness (x. 1); and He gave similar authority 
to the Seventy (Lk. x. 9, 17). He produced evidence to show 
that He had authority on earth to forgive sins (ix. 6). He said 
that the Father had given Him authority to execute judgment ; 
authority over all flesh to bestow eternal life ; authority to lay down 
His own life and to take it again (Jn. v. 27, xvii. 2,x. 18). But all 
this falls short of what is stated here, that He has received all autho- 
rity in heaven and on earth. And it is in the plenitude of this 
Divine authority that He lays upon His Apostles and His Church 
His last great charge, and leaves to them His last great promise. 

‘Go ye therefore, and make disciples of all the nations’ (19). 
The connexion between the declaration of universal authority 
and the command to His servants is clearly expressed. It is 
because the Messiah has all dominion both above and below 
that He gives this comprehensive charge to the Apostles.1 He 
commits the whole human race to their care, and they are not 
to rest until all have been brought in as disciples with them of 
the one Master (xxiii. 10), and as sheep with them of the one 
flock and the one Shepherd (Jn. x. 16). Before this, when He 
was Himself ministering to the lost sheep of the house of Israel 
(xv. 24), He had confined their ministrations to the same field. 
They were not to go into any way of the Gentiles or into any 
city of the Samaritans, and they were sent forth by Him as 
sheep in the midst of wolves (x. 5, 6, 16). But the Risen Christ, 
to whom all authority has been given, imposes no such limitation 
of sphere upon the labours of His disciples. It is specially to 
the Gentiles, but without excluding the Jews, that they are now 
sent, not merely to instruct them, but to make them as fully 
disciples of Christ as they are themselves. The promise that 
He made to the first of them, when He invited them to follow 
Him, that He would make them fishers of men (iv. 19), is now 
fulfilled in its widest extent of meaning. He has trained them 
Himself, and since His Resurrection He has been training them 
to do without His bodily presence. The salt of the earth (v. 13) 
is sent forth to save mankind from corruption; the light of the 
world (v. 14) is sent forth to illuminate every branch of the 
human race. They have no longer to preach the Messiah of 
the Jewish people, but the Saviour of the world. Comp. the 
Ascension of Isaiah, iii. 18. 

1 ‘The Eleven are to be sent on an cecumenical mission, and they must 
know that they have behind them an authority which is cecumenical. . . . 
Universal authority is now in the hands of Jesus Christ, and with it has come 
the universal mission of His Church” (Swete, Appearances, pp. 71, 73). 
Those whom God has placed in possession of the truth that saves are bound 
to impart it to those who are not in possession of it; and for the discharge 


of this obligation they need the power which has been committed to the Son 
of God. 


430 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [ΧΧΥἹΠ.]1 


We need not suppose that, when Christ said, ‘ Disciple all 
the nations’ (μαθητεύσατε πάντα τὰ ἔθνη), He meant to exclude 
the Jews. ‘The nations’ (τὰ ἔθνη) often means the heathen 
nations, but not necessarily; and ‘all the nations’ cannot ex- 
clude any branch of the human race. Jewish Apostles could 
not for a moment suppose that their own nation was to be 
avoided in their preaching, and it is evident from their practice 
afterwards that they did not understand Christ’s farewell charge 
in any such sense. To say that the Jews had excluded them- 
selves, and that by the dastardly conduct of the representatives 
of the nation (conduct persisted in even after Christ’s death) 
the nation had forfeited all right to admission into the Kingdom, 
is no Christian argument. ‘The door is always open to Jew and 
Gentile alike. If Christ readmitted to the high office of the 
Apostolate those who in the moment of trial ‘all left Him and 
fled’ (xxvi. 56), would He be likely to exclude from His Church 
those who, without ever having been His disciples, ‘in ignorance’ 
rejected and slew Him? Acts xxi. 20 15 sufficient answer to that.! 

This enormous extension of their mission was not wholly 
new to the Apostles, although this statement of it may have 
startled them. During the last days of His Ministry Christ had 
told them that there was a Divine necessity (de?) that the Gospel 
should ‘be preached unto all the nations’ (Mk. xiii. ro), or, as 
Mt. puts it, ‘shall be preached in the whole world (ev ὅλῃ τῇ 
oixoupevy) for a testimony unto all the nations’ (xxiv. 14); and 
again in the house of Simon the leper at Bethany He had said 
that Mary’s act in anointing Him for His burial should ‘be 
spoken of for a memorial of her, wheresoever this Gospel shall 
be preached in the whole world’ (xxvi. 13= Mk. xiv. 9).2 The 
Apostles, after their mission as preachers in Palestine, could 
hardly fail to understand that they were themselves to under- 
take this work of preaching unto all the nations. If not at the 
time, they would understand it afterwards. 

We are less sure that they were not surprised to be told that 
this work of making disciples of all the nations was always to be 
accompanied by baptism. John had baptized his penitents, and 
for a time Christ’s followers had administered baptism, apparently 
to those who wished to become His disciples (Jn. iv. 1, 2); but 
this rite of initiation does not seem to have been continued. 
We read no more of it in connexion with the Messiah. All that 

1 Chrysostom in commenting on the passage says: ‘‘ He gives them orders 
partly about doctrines and partly about commandments. And of the Jews 
Ie says not a word, nor does He upbraid Peter with his denial nor any of 
the others with their flight; but He commands them to spread themselves 
over the whole world, entrusting them with a brief teaching, even that teach 
ing which is by baptism.” 

2 Comp. also the command in the parable xxii. 9; Lk. xiv. 23. 


XXVIII. 19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 431 


was required of those who desired to be His disciples was that 
they should follow Him (viii. 19, 22, ix. 9, xvi. 24, xix. 21; Jn. 
x. 27, xii. 26). The command to make baptism a condition 
of discipleship may possibly have been a surprise to the 
Apostles. 

This command is implied in the appendix to Mk. Immedi- 
ately after the charge, ‘Go ye into all the world, and preach the 
Gospel to the whole creation,’ come the words, ‘ He that believeth 
and is baptized shall be saved.’! Have we any evidence that 
it was contained in the authentic conclusion of Mk.? ‘There is 
just this reasonable inference. At the very opening of his Gospel 
Mk. places John’s contrast between his own baptism and that 
of the Christ: ‘I baptized you with water; but He shall baptize 
you with the Holy Spirit’ (i. 8). “1 would be wholly congruous 
that the last section of the Gospel should contain the fulfilment 
of that prophecy in Christ’s final command to His disciples, that 
they should baptize ‘all the nations’ and bring them into a vital 
union with the Father, the Son, and the Holy Ghost” (Chase, 
“The Lord’s Command to Baptize,” in the Journal of Theological 
Studies, vi. 24, p. 483, July 1905; the whole paper should be 
studied). There is also the probability that the momentous 
statement in Mk. xiii. 10, ‘The Gospel must first be preached 
to all the nations,’ would be confirmed before Christ’s final de- 
parture, and that Mk. would record the confirmation. See the 
Lfibbert Journal, July 1905, p. 781. 

With regard to our Lord’s command to baptize, as recorded 
here, several questions have been raised to which an answer ought 
to be given. 1. Is ver. 19, as we have it in our Bibles, part of 
the genuine text of Mt.? 2. If it is, does it give the substance 
of words actually uttered by our Lord? 3. Does it order the 
use of a particular baptismal formula? 

1. The question of the genuineness of the verse may be 
answered with the utmost confidence. The verse is found in 
every extant Greek MS., whether uncial or cursive, and in every 
extant Version, which contains this portion of Mt. In a few 
witnesses the conclusion of the Gospel is wanting, but there is 
no reason for believing that in these witnesses the verse or 
any portion of it was omitted. It has been argued by F. C. 
Conybeare (Zibbert Journal for Oct. 1902) and by Professor 
Lake (Jnaugural Lecture at Leiden, 27 Jan. 1904) that the clause, 
‘baptizing them ... Holy Spirit’ was very early interpolated 
for dogmatic reasons in some copies of Mt., and that it was not 
firmly established as part of this Gospel till after the Council of 
Nicea. The chief argument is that Eusebius, Bishop of Caesarea 
(A.D. 313-339), where he had access to a great library, often 

1 Comp. Acts ii. 38; Tit. iii. 5; 1 Pet. iii, 21. 


432 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [ XXVIII. 19 


quotes this passage and habitually omits, or stops short of, the 
words which speak of baptism. Therefore the original text was 
simply, ‘Go and make disciples of all nations,’ perhaps with the 
addition ‘in My name.’ Dr. Chase has conclusively shown the 
fallacious character of this argument. Eusebius quotes the verse, 
with the command to baptize into the name of the ‘Trinity, when 
he requires the command for his purpose ; when he requires the 
rest of the verse, but not the command, he omits the latter. It 
is incredible that an interpolation of this character can have been 
made in the text of Mt. without leaving a trace of its unauthen- 
ticity in a single MS. or Version. See Burkitt, Zvangelion da- 
Mepharreshe, ii. p. 153. The evidence for its genuineness is 
overwhelming. 

2. But it is possible that, although the Evangelist wrote these 
words, yet they do not represent anything that our Lord actually 
uttered; he may be putting into Christ’s mouth the baptismal 
formula with which he was familiar, and which he was sure must 
have Christ’s authority. He seems to act in this way with 
regard to his own interpretation of the sign of Jonah (xil. 40), 
and he may be doing a similar thing here. In answer to this 
suggestion it may be pointed out that, although it is probable 
that we have here only the substance of what our Lord said, and 
perhaps an abbreviation of it, yet there is very good reason for 
believing that Christ did say something which is fairly repre- 
sented by the words which Mt. records. There is so much 
Trinitarian doctrine in the N.T. which can hardly be explained, 
except upon the hypothesis that Christ Himself had said some- 
thing of this kind. The writers produce this doctrine quite 
naturally, as if it was a mode of thought which was habitual 
with them ; and (not only so) they evidently feel sure that those 
to whom they write will understand it. Writing on τ Pet. 1. 2, 
Dr. Hort says: “The three clauses of this verse beyond all 
reasonable question set forth the operation of the Father, the 
Holy Spirit, and the Son respectively. Here therefore, as in 
several Epistles of 5. Paul (1 Cor. xii. 4-6; 2 Cor. xill. 14; 
Eph. iv. 4-6), there is an implicit reference to the Threefold 
Name. In no passage is there any indication that the writer 
was independently working out a doctrinal scheme: a recognised 
belief or idea seems to be everywhere presupposed. How such 
an idea could arise in the mind of any apostle without sanction 
from a Word of the Lord, it is difficult to imagine: and /¢hes 
consideration ts a suticient answer to the doubts which have been 
raised whether Mt. xxvitt. 19 may not have been added or recast 
by a later generation.” The strongest case among the passages 
named is 2 Cor. xiii. 14, on which see the present writer’s notes 
in the Cambridge Greek Testament. But there are other passages 


XXVIII. 19] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 433 


which might be added: 2 Thes. ii. 13-15 ; Eph. ii. 18, iii. 14-17 ; 
Heb. vi. 4-6; 1 Jn. iii. 23, 24, ad oh Rev. i. 4, 5; Jude 20, 21. 

3. One reason for doubting whether our Lord ever uttered 
anything like the command to baptize as recorded by Mt. is the 
thought that He would not be likely to prescribe a set form of 
words for this purpose. And this thought is strengthened by 
the fact that nowhere in the N.T. do we read of the Trinitarian 
formula being used. At the outset, Peter exhorts the people to 
‘be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ’ (Acts ii. 38). The 
Samaritans converted by Philip were ‘baptized into the Name 
of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts viii. 16). Peter directed that Cornelius 
and others should ‘be baptized in the Name of Jesus Christ’ 
(Acts x. 48). And the Ephesian disciples were ‘baptized into 
the Name of the Lord Jesus’ (Acts xix. 5). Moreover, the 
Pauline expression, ‘baptized into Christ’ (Rom. vi. 3; Gal. 
iii. 27; comp. Ὁ Cor. i. 13, vi. 11), is much closer to the 
passages in Acts than to the words recorded here. If our 
Lord had really given directions that the Trinitarian formula 
was to be employed by the Apostles, the formula given in Acts 
would never have come into use. 

It is possible that the passages in Acts do not profess to give 
the exact form of words that was used: they need not mean 
more than that the persons mentioned were admitted by baptism 
into the Church, the Body of Christ. It is still more possible 
that in the words before us our Lord was not ordering any 
particular form of administering baptism, although He was after- 
wards supposed to have done so. His command, as reported 
by Mt., would naturally suggest the Trinitarian formula, whether 
or no it was from the first understood to prescribe it; but it is 
not certain that it was meant to prescribe it. Our Lord may 
be explaining what becoming a disciple really involves: it means 
no less than entering into communion with, into vital relation- 
ship with, the revealed Persons of the Godhead. The Divine 
Name is often a reverent synonym for the Divine Nature, for 
God Himself; and therefore baptizing into the Name of the 
Trinity may mean immersing in the infinite ocean of the Divine 
Perfection. In Christian Baptism the Divine Essence is the 
element info which the baptized are plunged, or ἐμ which they 
are bathed. Thus both prepositions (εἰς and év) are justified. 

1Mk. has both ἐβαπτίζοντο ἐν τῷ ᾿Ιορδάνῃ (i. 5) and ἐβαπτίσθη els τὸν 
Ἰορδάνην (i. 9). In late Greek εἰς sometimes loses its distinctness of meaning 
and is used as almost equivalent to év; but this is not the whole explanation 
of the two constructions, which look at the act of immersion from different 
points of view. The one regards the plunge into the water, the other the 
washing in it. 

It is possible that the expression ‘into the name of’ conveys the idea of 
‘becoming the property of’; see Deissmann, Bidb/e Studies, p. 146. 


28 


434 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤΟ 8. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 19 


We have seen that, whereas in Acts we have ‘baptized into the 
Name of the Lord Jesus’ or ‘ baptized in the Name of Jesus 
Christ,’ S. Paul says simply ‘baptized into Christ,’ omitting all 
mention of the Name. Evidently he regards the meaning (or 
result) of baptism, rather than the form of words used in ad- 
ministering it. The baptized person has put on Christ (Gal. 
iii. 27) and is incorporated with Him. It is remarkable that 
we find the same significant omission of ‘the Name of’ in early 
Christian writers with regard to the Trinity. Tertullian uses 
both expressions. In the De Baptismo 13 he translates this 
passage exactly, as prescribing a form: “ Lex enim tinguendi im- 
posita est et forma prescripta. Ite, inquit, docete nationes, tingu- 
entes eas in nomen Patris et Filtt et Spiritus Sancti.” But in the 
De Prescriptione Hereticorum 20 we have: “ Jussit 176 et docere 
nationes tinguendas in Patrem et in Lilium et in Spiritum 
Sanctum.” And again, Adv. Praxean 26: “ Mandans ut 
tinguerent in Patrem et Filium et Spiritum Sanctum.” It 
would seem as if Tertullian saw that the baptism which Christ 
enjoined was that of admission to communion with the Trinity.! 
If, then, in this important passage our Lord was explaining the 
import of Christian baptism rather than enjoining a particular 
mode of administration, the difficulty of believing that He 
uttered this saying is greatly diminished, if it does not vanish 
altogether. And possibly, if we had His exact words, of which 
this verse may be a condensation, we should see clearly that He 
was not prescribing a formula. 

We may believe that the publication of this Gospel made 
baptism in the Name of the Trinity the usual form, for the 
Lord’s words suggest this. Justin Martyr, writing A.D. 150-160, 
tells the heathen that Christians use the Trinitarian formula, 
which, however, he paraphrases, so as to make it more in- 
telligible to outsiders. He says that they make the purification 
in water after the manner of a new birth, “in (lit. 95) the Name 
of the Father of the universe and Sovereign God and of our 
Saviour Jesus Christ and of the Holy Spirit” (Aol. i. 61).? 
And Tertullian is witness as to what was customary less than 
fifty years later. The Didache (7) exactly follows Mt. “ Having 
first taught all these things, baptize into the Name of the Father 
and of the Son and of the Holy Spirit in living water”; where 
“living water” probably means river-water or spring-water, as 

1 Tt is worth noting that Tertullian nowhere has the owes before zatzones ; 
and the same omission is found in the treatise De Rebaptesmate 7, commonly 
printed with Cyprian’s works (Hartel, ii. p. 78). 

2 ἐπ᾽ ὀνόματος τοῦ πατρὸς TOY ὅλων καὶ δεσπότου Θεοῦ καὶ τοῦ σωτῆρος ἡμῶν 
Ἰησοῦ Χριστοῦ καὶ πνεύματος ἁγίους Comp. Iren. II. xvii. 1. Three pre- 


positions, therefore, are used in this connexion, without great difference of 


meaning, εἰς, ἐν, and ἐπί. 


XXVIII. 20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 435 


distinct from what is stagnant. Nevertheless, the practice of 
baptizing “in the Name of Jesus Christ,” or “into the death 
of Christ,” must have continued for some time, for Cyprian 
(2. Ixxiii. 18) contends against the one, and the Apostolical 
Canons (50) forbid the other. Any bishop or presbyter baptizing 
with only “one immersion which is administered into the death 
of the Lord” is to be deprived. 

It has already been pointed out that there are good 
reasons for believing that Mt. derived the substance of this © 
last paragraph (16-20) from the lost conclusion of Mk. 
Perhaps there would be less doubt as to the meaning of 
ver. 19, if we could know what Mk. had written. The evidence 
contained in it is no doubt later than that contained in the 
Epistles of St. Paul; but we are not justified in saying that it 
is later than the evidence contained in Acts. As a document, 
the First Gospel, including this verse, must be placed earlier 
than Acts. 

The division of the verses (19, 20) is not very happy. 
“Teaching them to observe all things whatsoever I commanded 
you” clearly belongs to ver. 19: it is part of the great charge. 
The charge is characteristically reproduced by Mt. in a threefold 
form: the Apostles are to make disciples of all men, to baptize 
them, and to instruct them. The great promise which follows 
the third portion of the charge should have been made a separate 
verse. 

It is evident from the threefold charge that the teaching 
which suffices for discipleship and for admission to Christian 
communion is not all that is requisite. After baptism much 
additional instruction will be required, especially for Gentiles, 
who knew nothing about the teaching of the O.T., either as 
regards doctrine or morality. But it is not the O.T. which 
Christ gives to the Apostles as the source of the instruction 
which they are to give to the new disciples; the basis of their 
teaching is to be ‘all things whatsoever I commanded you.’ What 
was ‘said to them of old time’ is not enough; it is what “7 
say unto you’ (v. 21, 22, 27, 28, 33, 34), expanding, deepening, 
spiritualizing what had been taught by the Law and the Prophets, 
that is to be the Apostles’ guide in teaching all the nations. And, 
lest they should fear that they would forget much of what He had 
enjoined, He had already promised them that the Holy Spirit 
would ‘bring to their remembrance all that He said to them’ 
(ἐκεῖνος ὑμᾶς διδάξει πάντα, καὶ ὑπομνήσει ὑμᾶς πάντα ἃ εἶπον ὑμῖν, 
Jn. xiv. 26). The wide sweep both of the promise (πάντα ἅ) and of 
the command {πάντα ὅσα) should be noted. They exactly corre- 
spond, and the fulfilment of the one is the security for the fulfil- 
ment of the other. Moreover, they both include Christ’s teaching 


436 GOSPEL ACCORDING TO S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 20 


respecting what is to be believed as well as what is to be 
done. 

But more is required than that they should be enabled by the 
Holy Spirit to remember, and understand, and develop, and 
apply all that the Messiah had enjoined during His training of 
them. ‘This overwhelming charge to ‘go and make disciples of 
all the nations’ might well make each one of the Apostles ask, ‘ And 
who is sufficient for these things ?’ (2 Cor. ii. 16). The answer is, 
‘T can do all things in Him that strengtheneth me’ (Phil. iv. 13). 
Therefore, just as the great claim leads on to the great charge, so 
the great charge is followed by the great promise. ‘And lo, Z 
am with you all the days, even unto the end of the world.’ 
There need be no doubts or faintheartedness after such an 
assurance as that, and nothing is wanting to the fulness of it. 
There is the solemn introduction (καὶ ἰδού) ; the emphatic pronoun 
(ἐγὼ μεθ᾽ ὑμῶν εἰμι), showing that no less than the Risen Lord 
Himself is to be their companion and their ally; the detailed 
description of the time (πάσας τὰς ἡμέρας), leaving not a single 
day without the certainty of this help; and the express statement 
that this promise holds good so long as the present dispensation 
shall last (ews τῆς συντελείας τοῦ αἰῶνος). When ‘the consumma- 
tion of the age’ has been reached, they will no longer need the 
assurance that He is with them to aid them in their work, for 
their work will be accomplished, and they ‘will see Him even 
as Hes? (a) Jn. a). 

The symbolism of Him who ‘walks in the midst of the lamp- 
stands’ which represent the Churches (Rev. ii. 1) illustrates this. 
“Α sharing of their life and motion is intended” (Hort, ad /oc.). 
“As the Enemy περιπατεῖ ζητῶν καταπιεῖν (1 Pet. v. 8), so the 
Lord patrols the ground, is ever on the spot when He is needed ; 
His presence is not localized, but co-extensive with the Church” 
(Swete, ad /oc.). 


The expression ‘ consummation of the age’ or ‘end of the world’ (συντέ- 
Neva τοῦ αἰῶνος or συντ. αἰῶνος), is, in the Bible, peculiar to Mt. (xiii. 39, 40, 
49, xxiv. 3, xxviii. 20). Comp. συντ. τῶν αἰώνων (Heb. ix. 26; Testament 
of Levi x. 2) and συντ. καιρῶν (Dan. ix. 27), συντ. ἡμερῶν (Dan. xii. 13), 
καιροῦ συντ. (Dan. xil. 4, 7). But this fact does not prove that our Lord did 
not use the expression. In xiii. 39, 40, 49 it is probable enough that Mt. 
found it in his source; and he may have done so here. But if both here and 
xxiv. 3 he has introduced it in editing what lay before him, he still may be 
introducing an expression which Christ sometimes used. The phrase is 
Jewish in tone, and seems to have been almost a technical term in apocalyptic 
literature. ‘‘ Thou shalt therefore be assuredly preserved to the consumma- 
tion of the times” (Apocalypse of Baruch, xiil. 3; comp. xxvii. 15, xxix. 8, 


1 Wellhausen unduly limits the meaning: Jz xxvitz. 20 τέ von der 
Predigt des Evangeliums welches den gekreuzigten und auferstandenen 
Christus zum Inhalt hat keine Rede, sondern nur von Geboten Jesu (p. 152). 


XXVIII. 20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 437 


xxx. 3, liv. 21, lix. 8, Ixix. 4, Ixxxiii. 7); ‘‘ The Lord shall visit them in the 
consummation of the end of the days” (Assumption of Moses, i. 18); ‘f Thus 
will they destroy until the day when the great consummation of the great 
world be consummated over the watchers and the godless” (Book of Enoch, 
xvi. I); where the expression sometimes means the end of the world, some- 
times the Messianic age. There is nothing improbable in the supposition 
that Christ Himself made use of it. Dalman (/Vords, p. 155) goes too far 
when he says: ‘‘ As the term occurs only in Matthew, it will belong not to 
Jesus Himself, but to the Evangelist.” Is it impossible that a phrase which 
Christ Himself had used should be preserved by only one Evangelist? What- 
ever may be the origin of the phrase, one feels how suitable it is as a solemn 
conclusion to the Gospel. 


It was suggested above that the narrative of the visit of the 
women to the sepulchre (1-10) may possibly refer to the same 
visit as that which is recorded of the Magdalen alone (Jn. xx. 1, 
2, 11-18). Here it is necessary to consider whether this ap- 
pearance to the Eleven (16-20) is not to be identified with that 
to ‘more than five hundred brethren at once’ which S. Paul 
mentions (t Cor. xv. 6).! One tradition may have singled out 
the Magdalen in the former case and have been silent respecting 
her companions; and something of a similar kind may have 
taken place with regard to an appearance in Galilee. The Eleven 
were the most important element in the company of witnesses, 
and it is possible that in some narratives no one else was mentioned. 
It is obvious that if the appearance was to be made to hundreds 
of persons, it must take place in the open air, and the high 
ground above the lake was a suitable place. A manifestation to 
the Eleven could take place in Galilee, as at Jerusalem, in a 
room. Comp. Lk. xxiv. 33-43, where others besides the Apostles 
were present. In any case, the appeal which S. Paul makes to 
the testimony of so large a number of still living witnesses cannot 
be dismissed as a “battered sophism.” “It would have been 
dangerous for the Apostle to appeal to the survivors of the five 
- hundred in a letter written to Corinth, where he had enemies 
who were in frequent communication with Jerusalem” (Swete, 
Appearances, p. 84). The probability that, if the Risen Messiah 
appeared at all to human eyes, He would appear to others besides 
the Apostles, is great. It would have placed the Eleven at a 
serious disadvantage if they had been the only disciples who 
could affirm that they had seen Him. According to the evidence 
which has come down to us, both in Jerusalem and in Galilee a 
number of persons, in addition to the Apostles, were allowed to 
see and hear Him, and in some cases even to touch Him. And 
yet, in the first instance, none of them expected to do so. They 


1 Maclaren says that ‘‘it is obviously the same incident,” which is too 
strong a statement. ‘‘ There is no veiled personality now, as to Mary and 
to the two on the road to Emmaus; no greeting ; no demonstration of the 
reality of His appearance. He stands amongst them as the King.” 


438 GOSPEL ACCORDING ΤῸ S. MATTHEW [XXVIII. 20 


had made up their mind that they would never see Him 
again. 

On the other hand, however many appearances there may 
have been in Jerusalem and in Galilee to the Apostles and 
others, we read of no appearance to Christ’s enemies, to the 
chief priests, or elders, to Pilate or to Herod. There was no 
attempt to force them to believe. He had refused the demand 
for a sign from heaven, when the Pharisees challenged Him to 
give one. He had worked no miracle before Herod. What 
the suffering Christ had refused to do, the triumphant Christ 
abstained from doing. ‘The wills of His enemies were still left 
free, and they could continue to reject Him and oppose Him, 
if they so pleased. The desponding doubts of a loyal Apostle 
who was yearning to see Him again, and yet would accept no 
testimony respecting a fact which seemed to be far too good to 
be true, He was willing to dispel; such doubts could be utilized 
for the more confirmation of the faith. But the obstinate 
hostility of those who had declared Him to be a deceiver was 
left without any special privilege or intervention for its cure. 
When He was ministering to men’s bodies and was ready to heal 
them, we are told that there was a time when ‘ He cou/d not (οὐκ 
ἐδύνατο) there do any mighty work, save that He laid His hands 
upon a few sick folk and healed them’ (Mk. vi. 5), because of 
their unbelief; and it is possible that there were similar limita- 
tions with regard to His appearances after the Resurrection. 
Those appearances did not depend solely upon His own will: 
something depended upon the condition of the recipients. To 
hostile or unwilling hearts there was no appearance.! 

This does not mean that it was necessary that the recipients 
of this favour should be expecting it. If that were true, there 
would be some ground for the objection that those who 
declared that they had seen Him were quite honest, but were 
victims of a delusion: they saw what they had hoped to see, 
and what they had made up their minds that they were 
sure to see. Experience has proved that such delusions are 
possible for groups of persons as well as for individuals. But 
all the evidence that we possess contradicts this supposition. 
Except the meeting on ‘the mountain’ in Galilee, ‘where Jesus 
had appointed them,’ all the appearances were surprises ; and in 


‘It is one of the many signs of inferiority in the Gospel according to the 
Hebrews that it makes a servant of the priest (presumably the high priest) a 
witness of the Risen Lord. Jerome tells us that this Gospel narrated that 
‘when the Lord had given His linen cloth to a servant of the priest (servo 
sacerdot?s) He went to James and appeared to him ; for James had sworn that 
he would nct eat bread from that hour wherein he had drunk the cup of the 


Lord until he saw Him rising again from the dead” (Catal. Script. Eccl., 
Jacobus). 


ΣΝ a 


ΟΣ 4 Seog 


ἀμ τ ὦ Ge 


γ᾽ νυ Δ ee 


XXVIII. 20] PASSION, DEATH, RESURRECTION 439 


some cases those who saw Him and talked with Him did not at 
first know that it was He. Nevertheless, we may reasonably 
believe that a readiness to accept whatever He might desire to 
bestow upon them was one of the conditions of being able to see 
and hear and touch Him after His Resurrection ; and this con- 
dition was wanting in those who had crucified Him. 

But, although the large majority of those who had seen Him 
during His ministry thus forfeited the privilege of being among 
the witnesses of His Resurrection, this did not mean that they 
were for ever excluded from that equally real presence which 
He has promised to all faithful disciples throughout all time. 
They lost the opportunity of seeing the Risen Lord before His 
visible presence was withdrawn from human eyes. But, as we 
know from history, after the Holy Spirit was given to the Church, 
many of those who had been His opponents, including not a 
few of the priests,! joined the company of His disciples, and thus 
became partakers of His farewell blessing: ‘Lo, I am with you 
all the days, even unto the end of the world.’ 


Characteristic expressions in ch. xxviii. : τάφος (1), καὶ ἰδού (2, 7, 9, 20), 
σεισμός (2), προσέρχεσθαι (2, 9, 18), ἔνδυμα (3), δεῦτε (6), πορεύεσθαι (7, 11, 
16, 19), προσκυνεῖν (9, 17), τότε (10), ἰδού (7, 11), συνάγειν (12), ἡγεμών (14), 
padnrevew (19), συντελεία τοῦ αἰῶνος (20). Peculiar: κουστωδία (11), συμ- 
Βούλιον λαμβάνειν (12), διστάζειν (17 and xiv. 31 only) ; peculiar to this chapter : 
eldéa (3), and perhaps φημίζειν (15), but the common reading, διεφημίσθη 
(A BCD L) is probably right here as in ix. 31 and Mk. i. 45. 


1 Acts ii. 41, iv. 4, Ve 14, Vi. ἤν 


INDEXES 


—— ed 


INDEX I. 


ABBA, 369, 389. 

Abbott, E. A., 13, 51, 72, 119, 123, 
125, ney 281, 359, 372. 

Abbreviation of Mk. by Mt., xii, xiv, 
xv, xxiv, 48, 128, 201, 203, 211, 
223, 241, 269, 290, 306, 395, 
406. 

Abel, 322. 

Abiathar, 173. 

Abomination of desolation, 332. 

Aboth ; see Pirge Aboth. 

Acta Pauli et Thecle, 60. 

Acta Thome, 199, 248. 

Acts of John, 366. 

Adam, skull of, 394. 

Adultery, 81, 182, 259. 

Africanus, Julius, I 

Agony in Gethsemane, 368. 

Alexander, W. M., 135, 177, 242. 

Allen, W. C., i, xii, xxv, 17, 19, 47, 
FXO; ΤΑ͂Σ, 153) 166; 175; 183, 
185, 192, 213, 218, 227, 290, 
295, 303, 328, 357, 389, 413. 

Almsgiving, 91. 

Alphzus, 405. 

Ambrose, 60, 61, 109. 

Amiel, 62, 161. 

Andrew, 49, 204, 328. 

Andrews, S. J., 132, 204, 404. 

Angels, 6, 99, 198, 236, 251, 306, 
336, 339, 374, 416, 417. 

Annas, 321, 384. 

Annius of Viterbo, 2 

Antipas, 161, 200, 202, 223, 409. 

Aorists preferred by Mt. to imperfects, 
xili, 128, 135, 240, 312, 384, 
405. 

Apocalypse of Baruch, 32, 42, 127, 
171, 235, 325, 330, 436. 


GENERAL. 


Apocryphal Gospels, 4, 12, 18 
367, 393, 399, 416. 
Apostles, lists of the, 147. 
Apostolic Canons, 435. 
Apostolic Constitutions, 391. 
Arabic Gospel of the Infancy, 18. 
Aramaic, 25, 29, 49, 55, 91, 
105, 137, 164, 228, 353, 


385, 399. 
Archelaus, 19. 


Arimathza, 406. 

Aristophanes, 368. 

Arnobius, 402. 

Arrian, 116. 

Article, the definite, 73, 306, 
365. 

Ascension of Isaiah, 2, 34, 155, 
196, 352, 417, 429. 

Assumption of Moses, 336, 437. 

Augustine, 15, 35, 56, 62, 67, 70, 82, 
85, 86, 94, 97, 99, 107, 108, 
366, 394, 401. 


’ 356, 


101, 
357, 


307, 
177, 


ee the Kingdom asa, 127, 302 

3 

Baptism, Christian forms of, 433. 

Baptism of John, 22, 293. 

Baptism of the Messiah by John, 31. 

Baptist, John the, 20, 24, 27, 46, 
161, 193, 199, 203, 293. 

Baptist’s message to Christ, 159. 

Barabbas, 388, 389. 

Barachiah, 323. 

Barnabas, Epistle of, xxxviii, 146 
312, 325, 39 411. 

Barnes, W. E., 

Barton, G. A., ph 

Baruch ; see Apocaly ipse of. 

Baskets, kinds of, 219. 


44: 


442 


Beatitudes, 57, 70, 160, 189, 
341. 

Bede, 152. 

Beelzebub, 154, 175. 

Beet ἢ Ἃ., LoL. 

Beloved, 34. 

Bengel, 15, 40, 71, 117, 137, 
202, 308. 

Beratinus, Codex, 281. 

Bethlehem of Judzea, 12. 

Bethphage, 283. 

Bethsaida, 165, 224. 

Binding and _ loosing, 


228, 


160, 


227. 251. 
254. 

Birth of Christ, the date, ro. 

Blasphemy, 178, 380. 

Blass, 164, 197, 265, 374- 

Blind, healing the, 143, 175, 
280. 

Bousset, xxix. 

Box, ἃ. Ης τὸ. 

Bread, daily, ΙΟῚ. 

Brethren of the Lord, 9, 186. 

Briggs, C. A., x, xxx, 8, 20, 23, 29, 
34, 154, 157, 183, 229, 297, 299, 
311, 347. 

Brodrick, 376, 380. 

Bruce, A. B., 52, 96, 164, 205, 239, 
29571303" πε 

Burkitt, ἘΠ C., vil, xvi, 3, 17, 20, 23, 
33, 53, 77, 81, 141, 154, 230, 
237, 284, 303, 345, 378, 389, 
421, 432. 

Burton and Mathews, 41, 237, 246, 
262, 305, 358. 

Butler, Bishop, 320. 


282, 


Cesarea Philippi, 224. 

Caiaphas, 376, 378. 

Calmes, Th., xxviii. 

Camel, 269, 319. 

Canaanite, 217. 

Candour of the Evangelists, 262, 376, 
385, 405. 

Capernaum, 46, 135, 200. 

Casuistry of the Rabbis, 79, 83, 85, 
174, 211, 318. 

Gelsuss 12; τῇ, 18, 5.1. 372: 

Centurions, 125, 403, 404, 407. 

Chamisso, 205. 

Charles, R. H., xxiii, xxxiv, 34, 38, 
77, 80, 83, 176, 250, 309, 325, 
401, 403. 

Chase, F. He, 94, 229, 431. 

Children, Christ’s treatment of, 248, 
262. 

Chorazin, 164. 


INDEX 


Christology, xxv, xxx, xxxi, 167. 
Chronology in Mt., 17, 24, 30, 46, 
54, 135, 283, 349. 
Chrysostom, 73, 109, 130, 190, 
430. 
Church, the, 26, 229, 253. 
Cicero, 32, 381. 
Cities of Israel, 153. 
Clarke, J. Langton, 181. 
Cleansing of the Temple, 287. 
Clement of Alexandria, 67, 84, 110, 
128, 268, 360. 
Clement of Rome, [171], 360. 
Clementine Homilies, 84, 120, 215, 
250, 264, 360. 
Coins, 244, 247, 248, 256, 274, 305, 
354; 350, 384, 423. 
Compassion, 144, 149, 282. 
Confession of Peter, 226. 
Corban, 211. 
Cornelius 4 Lapide, 62, 68, 93, 417. 
Cross, 156, 233, 393, 396. 
Cup, 277, 363. 
Cyprian, 14, 86, 101, 181, 231, 
435: 
Cyril of Jerusalem, 22, 112, 162, 167, 
335: 


Dalman, 73, 84, 115, 129, 137, 143, 
179, 220) 225.0271 e270, SUI 
352, 361, 379, 399, 437- 

Dalmanutha, 220, 

Dante, 370. 

Darkness, 107, 398. 

Date of the Nativity, ro. 

Date of the First Gospel, xxxi, xxxiii, 
237, 333. 

Davidic origin of Mary, 2. 

Dead, raising the, 142, 149, 160. 

Decapolis, 219, 220. 


Deissmann, 86, ΟἹ, 127, 128, 140, 
150, 173, 175, 259; 20402056 
299, 337, 384, 433. 

Deliver up, 243, 276, 372. 

Demoniacs, 133, 135. 

Demons, 133, 144, 149, 175, 185, 


241. 
Denarius, 256, 274, 305, 354. 
Denials, Peter’s, 381. 
Derenbourg, 152. 
Devil, personality of the, 37, 
193. 
Didache, 103, 112, 116, 171, 287. 
Didon, 27, 35. 
Diminutives, 216, 219. 
Discourses, compiled, xix, 56, 119, 
148, 164, 198, 313. 


188, 


I, GENERAL 


Discrepancies and differences between 
Gospels, 3, 40, 58, 81, 89, 95, 
121, 131, 132, 133, 140, 145, 
150, 164, 174, 177, 188, 199, 
206, 222, 236, 264, 277, 282, 
287, 290, 293, 307, 356, 363; 
369, 373, 374, 378, 382, 388, 
396, 414, 418. 

Divine decrees, 234, 239, 330, 375. 

Divorce, 81, 259. 

Documents used by Mt., viii, x, xi, 
xvi, 3, 53: 

Dogs, 112, 216. 

Donehoo, J. de Q., 12, 366, 405. 

Dove in symbolism, 33. 

Doxology to the Lord's Prayer, 103. 

Drachma, 244, 274. 

Dreams, 6, 8, 16, 390. 

Driver, S. R., 33, 64, 172, 212, 308. 

Droosten, P. H., 35. 

Drummond, J., XXVili, 137, 288. 

Du Bose, W: Ῥ. » 140. 

Dumb, curing the, 143, 175, 218. 


Earthquakes, 131, 402, 415, 418. 

Edersheim, A., 82, 150, 51, 172, 
173, 176, 321, 358, 360, 386, 404. 

Editorial additions, xvii, 140, 183, 
360, 419. 

Egypt, 16. 

Elijah, 27, 93, 147, 163, 238, 240, 
370, 399. 

Elmslie, W. G., 19. 

Encyclopedia Biblica, 167, 186, 220. 

Enoch, Book of, 133, 151, 168, 176, 
pee 306, 325, 330, 334, 360, 
37 

Enoch, Bost of the Secrets of, 68, 83, 
87, 115, 255, 329, 342, 351, 360. 

Epictetus, 86, 155. 

Essenes, 22, 84. 

Eternal life, 263, 352. 

Eternal punishment, 29, 250, 346, 
352. 

Eucharist, 

363. 

Euripides, 155. 

Eusebius, vii, xxxii, 70, 176, 403, 431. 

Euthymius, 298. 

Evans, T. S., 362. 

Ewald, G. H. A., 389. 

Excommunication, 254. 

Exorcists, 144, 177. 

Expansion of Mk. by Mt., xiii, xvii, 
8, 82, 132, 183, 187, 226, 227, 
232, 236, 259, 266, 275, 307, 
309, 360. 


Institution of the, 361, 


443 
Expositor, xxxiv, xl, 10, 11, 19, 272, 
6 


350. 
Exposttor’s Bible, 112, 205. 
Expository Times, 147. 


Fairbairn, A. M., 356. 
Faith, 126, 135, 217, 291. 
False prophets, 116, 331, 334. 
Fasting, 104, 141. 
Father in heaven, 73, 74, 97. 
Field, F., 14, 108, 183, 256, 392. 
Fig-tree, the braggart, 290. 

the lesson of the, 337. 
Fire, baptizing with, 28. 

eternal, 250, 352. 
Five, groups of, xviii, xxi, 78, 312. 
Five thousand, feeding of, 203, 218. 
Flood, the, 340. 
Forgiveness, 136, 180, 252, 255. 
Four thousand, feeding of, 218. 
Free will, 41, 42. 
Freer, Cc, L.,, 103, 9127.) 247. 
Fritzsche, 125. 
Fulfilling the Law, 76. 


ae 132: 

alileans, 156, » 382. 

Galilee, Ge a2 

Gehenna, 79, 321. 

Genealogy of Christ, 1, 3. 

Gennesaret, 210. 

Gentiles, salvation open to, xxiv, 19, 
127, 298, 300, 301, 331, 429. 

Georgius Hamartolus, 278. 

Gerasa, 132. 

Gethsemane, 368. 

es P., 109, 118, 182, 205, 361, 
304. 

Gnosticism, 34, 399. 

Godet, F., 8. 

Golden Rule, 113. 

Gore, C., xxxi, 38, 55, 127, 183, 
3211. 

Gospel, 50; see Hebrews, G. ace. to. 

Gospel of eon 389, 390, 391, 


396, 4 
rig g tp τσ 367, 303, 399, 407, 


Gould, ἃ P., 48, 173, 180, 223, 250, 
259, 305, 311. 

Gray, G. B., 172. 

Gregory, C. R., ix, 103, 247. 

Gregory the Great, 130. 

Grenfell and Hunt, 74, 
258. 

Groser, W. H., 192. 

Guardian-Angels, 251. 


110, 112, 


444 


Hades, 79, 229. 

Hammond, C., 295. 

Hammurabi, 85. 

Harnack, x, xxxix, 40, 51, 
167, 411. 

Hase, K. V., 55, 86, 166. 

Hatch, E., 64, 106, 278. 

Hawkins, Sir J., xxiii, 20, 23, 80, 
120, I4I. 

Hearing or reading, 78, 173. 

Heathen, 13, 127, 139, 215, 
392. 

Heaven, 89, 97, 99, 127, 228. 

Hebrews, Gospel ace. to the, ix, 31, 
IOI, 255, 264, 389, 438. 

Henslow, G., 192. 

Herford, R. T., 8, 17, 76. 

Hermas, xxxvili, xl, 155, 360. 

Hermon, 223, 238. 

Herod the Great, 1, 16. 

Herod Antipas, 161, 200, 202, 223. 

Herodians, 174, 304. 

Herodias, 161. 

Herodotus, 354. 

Hibbert Journal, 52, 413, 431. 


56, 89, 


301, 


High priest, 14, 353, 376, 378, 384, 
401. 

Hippolytus, 326. 

Holtzmann, H. J., 291. 

Holtzmann, O., 4, 25, 51, 71, 168, 
419, 423. 

Holy City, 40, 332. 

Holy place, 332. 

Holy Spirit, 178. 

Homer, 186, 230, 235. 

Floris 75, 117; 120 ni 2 102: 128. 
250) 253, 317, 328, 428, 432, 
436. 

Hosanna, 286. 

Ignatius, 15, 31, 104, 248, 403. 

Illingworth, 122, 136. 

Imperative mood, III, 113, 159, 
320. 

Imperfect tense, 9, 120, 215, 218, 


224, 240. 

Imperfects and aorists ; see Aorists. 

Interpolations, 43, 82, 92, 103, 144, 
154, 186, 187, 221, 237, 243, 
252, 274, 281, 299, 317, 343; 
362, 395, 400. 

Irenzus, vii, 8, 35, 67, 78, 264, 413, 


34. 
Isaiah ; see Ascension of. 
Iscariot, 147. 
Isocrates, 114. 
Izates, 318. 


INDEX 


Jacquier, E., viii, 103. 

Jairus, 141. 

James, brother of John, 146, 276, 278. 

Jeremiah, 18, 225, 386 

Jericho, 282. 

Jerome, ix, 12, 31, 54, 101, 161, 181, 
255, 262, 386, 389, 394, 401, 
420, 438. 

Jerusalem, Lament over, 324. 

Jesus Christ, conscious of possessing 
Divine authority, 76, 89, 113, 
117, 118, 130, 139, 152, 157, 
165. 184. ἸΤΟὴι 251: 3222: 5378. 
422, 428. 

has knowledge of future events, 
234, 246, 278, 297, 321, 335; 
354; 366. 

originality of His teaching, 61, 69, 
114, 120, 227, 255, 307. 

uses hyperbole, 86, 242, 292, 319. 

uses irony, ΟἹ, 269, 320, 371. 

abstains from using supernatural 
means, 126, 225, 226, 290, 374, 
395- 

marvels, 126, 121; 217, 222. 

is ignorant of the date of the Last 
Judgment, 339. 

prays, 206, 368. 

see also Christology. 

John the son of Zebedee, 49, 276, 278, 


357: 
John the Baptist ; see Baptist. 
Jonah, 183. 
Joseph, husband of Mary, 2, 4,9, 199, 
Joseph of Arimathzea, 406, 408. 
Joseph of Arimathea, Narrative of, 


Josephus, ε 193) 25: ὃ4. τοῦ: Ἰοῖ. 
17) 183: 201: 210: 212. ΤΠ 
224, 260, 318, 333, 385, 402. 

Journal of Ti heolog gical Studies, 4, 14, 
25, 35, 46, 125, 135, 137, 164, 
2335) 241, 202. 200, 2845312) 
365, 378, 421, 431. 

Jubilees, Book of, xxxvi, 133, 151, 
173, 252, 300. 

Judea, 259, 333. 

Judas Iscariot, 148, 356, 359, 361, 
385. 

Judas Maccabeeus, 225. 

Judgment, Day of, 151, 338, 339, 348. 

Jiilicher, xi. 

Julius Africanus, 1. 

Justin Martyr, 8, 33, 84, 117, 120, 
183, 264, 285, 329, 331, 342, 


409, 413, 424, 434. 
Juvenal, 36 


I, GENERAL 


Kaddish, the Mourner’s, 104. 

Keim, 37, 167. 

Kennedy, H. A. A., 156, 163, 165, 
306 


a . 
Kenosis, 126, 311. 
Kenyon, F. G., 3. 
Keys, the power of the, 227, 230. 
King, E. G., 312. 
Kingdom of God, 25, 177, 269, 295. 
Kingdom of Heaven, 24. 
Kirkpatrick, A. F., 64, 311. 
Klostermann, E., 31, 32, 133, 172; 
309, 371. 
Knowling, R. J., 84, 136, 182, 386, 
412. 
Koran, 351. 


Lake, Kirsopp, 431. 

Lamb, Paschal, 357. 

Lang, Cosmo G., 344. 

Last Supper, 358. 

Latham, H., 42, 72. 

Law, Christ’s attitude towards the, 
75, 76, 82, 88, 123, 124, 139, 
172, 213, 259, 306, 314, 318. 

Leaven, 194, 222. 

Leo the Great, 92. 

Leonardo da Vinci, 359. 

Leprosy, 122. 

Levi, 137. 

Lex talionis, 84. 

Liddon, H. P., 224. 

Life, 108, 115, 156, 235, 250. 

Light, 46, 73, 107. 

Lightfoot, J. B., 9, 101, 103, 186, 
229, 248, 285, 368, 375, 403. 
Limitation of Christ’s human know- 

ledge, 126, 290, 311, 339, 395- 

Liturgies, 98, 364. 

Livy, 32. 

Lock and Sanday, 74. 

Loisy, A., xxxili, 54, 57, 82, 105, 
108, III. 

Longfellow, H. W., 150. 

Longinus, 404. 

Lord’s Prayer, 95, 370. 

Lord’s Supper, 361. 

Lost Sheep, 252. 

Love, 78, 87, 114, 266, 308. 

Lupton, J. M., 262. 

Lyttleton, E., 260. 


Macheerus, 159, 203. 

Mackinlay, G., 10, 48, 171, 188, 
240. 

Maclaren, A., 27, 51, 162, 184, 281, 
299, 437- 


445 


M‘Nabb, V., 4. 

Madden, F. W., 247, 274, 305. 

Magadan, 220. 

Magdalen ; see Mary. 

Magi, 11. 

Magic, 15, 17, 176. 

Maldonatus, 110. 

Mammon, I07. 

Martial, 83. 

Mary, the Mother of the Messiah, 2, 
9, 185, 199, 405. 

Mary, the sister of Martha, 355. 

Mary Magdalen, 405, 421, 437. 

Matthew, x, xvi, xvii, 137. 

Mayor, J. B., 10, 186. 

Metaphors against the Pharisees, 121. 

Metaphors, inferences from, 29, 80, 
81, 242. 

Midrash, 303. 

Milton, 39. 

Ministry in Galilee, 45, 49. 

in Judea, 288, 324. 

Miracles, 38, 46, 121, 149, 182, 201, 
203, 218, 246, 291. 

Miracles, enhancement by Mt. of the 
greatness of Christ’s, xv, 128, 
142, 143, 175, 205, 210, 211, 
218, 220, 241, 291. 

Mishna, 376. 

Mission of the Twelve, 144, 148, 151, 
153, 158. 

Moore, G. F., 285. 

Moses ; see Assumption of. 

Moulton, J. H., 13, 14, 98, 111, 134, 
156; (106; 1975252, 255.2775 
301, 322, 345, 389, 400, 415. 

Moulton, R. G., 8, 60, 183. 

Mountain, 37, 54, 206, 242, 292, 425, 
427. 

of transfiguration, 238. 

Mozley, J. B., 87. 

Mustard-seed, 194, 242, 

Mylne, L. G., 311. 


Nazarene, 18, 382, 396. 

Nazareth, 19, 198. 

Nazarité, 130. 

Neander, 38, 274, 402. 

Nestle, 3, 7, 103, 154, 195, 202, 275, 
281, 380, 400. 

Nicodemus ; see Gospel of. 

Nominative for vocative, 399. 

Nosgen, Ὁ. F., 166. 

Numerical arrangement; see Five, 
Seven, Ten, Triplets. 


Oaths, 82, 84, 318, 378, 382. 


446 


Old Testament, quotations from the, 
8, 17, 18, 40, 41, 46, 78, 82, 87, 
128, 140, 173, 175, 189, 195, 
212, 260, 266, 285, 289, 306, 
309, 310, 332, 366, 375, 386, 
395, 399, 401. 

Olshausen, 155. 

Origen, xxxvili, xxxix, 15, 17, 68, 
82) LOM, 110; 117. ἜΖΗ 125. 0. 


201: GOP, Lil, Pei, 2951. 59. 
_ 372; 389, 394. 
Ovid, 391. 
Oxyrhynchus Logia, 74, 110, 112; 
222, 254. 


Papias, vii, viii, 278, 386. 
Parables, 187, 190, 301, 348. 
of judgment, 349. 
pairs of, 72, 141, 194, 197. 
Paradoxes in Christ’s teaching, 61, 
69, 86, 130, 242, 292. 
Parousia, 329. 
Pascal, 107. 
Passion, prediction of the, 231, 243, 
275. 
Passover, 203, 284, 356, 358. 
Paul, the Apostle, 212, 316, 363, 370, 
411, 421. 
Peckover, Algerine, Codex, 247. 
Perzea, 258, 283. 
Perowne, J. J. S., 311. 
Persecution predicted, 151, 330. 
Personality of evil, 37, 188, 193. 
Peter, 49, 128, 147, 208, 213, 226, 
228, 231, 239, 244, 255, 270, 357: 
367, 370, 374, 381, 421. 
Peter ; see Gospel of. 
Pharisees, 27, 77, 90, 136, 139, 144, 
172, 175, 170; 182. 200, 2211, 250: 
antagonism of Mt. to the, 28, 121, 
182, 299, 308, 310, 313, 409. 
Philo, 114, 265, 309. 
Philostratus, 133. 
Pilate, 385, 387, 391, 407. 
Pindar, 199. 
Pirge Aboth, xxiii, 80, 86, 99, 171, 
249, 250, 254, 275, 352. 
Plato, 88, 92, 380. 
Plautus, 309. 
Pliny, 71, 354. 
Plutarch, 85, 194, 392. 
Polycarp, Epistle of, 394. 
Popular enthusiasm for Christ, 120, 
206, 284, 287, 313. 
Predicatio Pault, 31. 
Prayer, 93, 100, 113, 206, 242, 261, 
291, 369. 


INDEX 


Prayer, the Lord’s, 95, 370. 

Preparation, the, 408. 

Present tense, xiii, 48, 111, 113, 136. 

Priests, 123, 289, 299, 373, 385, 397; 
401, 410. 

Primacy of Peter, 147, 229, 234. 

Prophecy, fulfilment of, xxiv, 16, 17, 
20, 46, 128, 163, 175, 189, 195, 
285, 375, 386. 

Prophets, false, 116, 331, 334. 

Proselytes, 126, 317. 

Proverbs in Christ’s teaching, IIT, 
171, 177, 213, 269, 334. 

Psalm cx., Christ’s question about, 310. 

Psalms of Solomion, xxvii, 106, 177, 
190, 337, 339, 378. 

Publicans or toll-collectors, 89, 137, 
254, 295. 

Punctuation, 20, 34, 161, 295, 377, 
400. 

Punishment, eternal, 29, 250, 346, 
352. 

Purifications, 22, 212, 319. 


Quotations ; see Old Testament and 
Prophecy. 


Rabbinical sayings, 76, 81, 140, 158, 
213, 308; see Talmud. 

Raca, 78. 

Rahab, 2. 

Ramsay, Sir W., x, 10. 

Ransom, 280. 

Reading or hearing, 78, 173. 

Readings, important differences of, 3, 
29, 35, 43, 78, 91, 103, 114, 144, 
164, 165, 168, 294, 306, 308, 
317, 319, 321, 323, 339, 364, 
389, 400. 

Remission of sins, 22. 

Renan, xi, 165, 385, 389. 

Repentance, 21, 295. 

Resch, 35, 88, 109, 128, 247, 281, 
342, 371. 

Ronsch, 110. 

Resurrection, 183, 244, 305, 411, 414, 
419. 

Rich young man, 263. 

Riches, dangers of, 267. 

Robbers, the two, 396, 398. 

Robertson, A., 25. 

Robinson, J. A., 34, 229, 278, 288. 

Rock, the, 228, 234. 

Roman liturgy, 364. 

Room, the upper, 358. 

Rooms, 315. 

Ropes, J. R., x. 


I, GENERAL 


Ruth, 2. 

Ryle, H. E., 225, 322. 
Ryle, R. J., 52. 

Ryle and James, 378. 


Sabbath, 172, 174, 333, 408, 415. 

Sadducees, 27, 221, 305, 307. 

Salmon, x, 22, 38, 76, 124, 133, 159, 
164, 180, 183, 208, 227, 265, 
272, 277; 355» 363, 375» 379: 
400. 

Salome, 277, 405, 415. 

Salt, 71. 

Samaritans, 148. 

Sanday, xxvi, xxix, 3, 23, 25, 36, 
51, 122, 125, 160, 163, 165, 
183, 101, 205, 229, 233, 272, 
280, 288, 292, 311, 327, 349, 
358, 394, 414. 

Sanday and Headlam, 136. 

Sanhedrin, 13, 79, 293, 299, 376, 
381, 384, 410. 

Satan, 36, 37, 43, 176, 188, 193. 

Schanz, P., 361. 

Schmidt, N., 420. 

Schmiedel, P. W., 51, 166. 

Schiirer, E., xxxiv, 141, 148, 152, 
202, 245, 318, 378, 399. 

Scourging, 322, 391. 

Scribes, 13, 77, 136, 211, 214, 289, 
314. 

Scrivener, 7, 103, 281. 

Sealing, 410. 

oe XXVil, 153, 236, 329, 
335. 

Secrets of Enoch; see Enoch. 

Seneca, 116, 142, 199. 

Septuagint, sparse use of the, 8, 14, 
17, 47, 117, 128, 161, 175, 189, 
195, 212, 266, 289, 309, 367, 
386, 399. 

Sepulchre, 407, 410, 411, 419. 

Sepulchres, whited, 319. 

Seven, xix, xxii, 60, 96, 109, 110, 
148, 196, 316, 327. 

Shakespeare, 41, 192, 256, 269, 315. 

Sheba, the Queen of, 15, 184. 

Shewbread, 172. 

Sidon, 219. 

Silence as to the Messiahship, 175, 
231, 234, 379. 

Silence enjoined on the healed, 124, 
142, 143, 175. 

Sinaitic ; see Syriac. 

Sinlessness of Christ, 7, 31, 113. 

Slaves, 107, 280, 346. 

Sodom, 151, 165. 


447 


Solomon ; see Psalms of. 

Son of David, 2, 10, 143, 215, 282, 
289, 310. 

Son of God, xxviii, 34, 39, 40, 
167, 210, 378, 398, 404. 

Son of Man, xxv, 129, 136, 
19%, 179s 490; aad, 230, 
252, 270, 280, 335, 337, 
353, 359, 371, 380. 

Soul or Life, 156, 235, 309. 

Soul of Christ, 368. 

Stanley, A. P., 188, 224. 

Stater, 247, 248, 384. 

Steinbeck, J., 76, 157. 

Stier, R. E., 57. 

Strauss, D., 8, 167, 286, 324. 

Streane, A. W., 225. 

Supper, the Last, 358. 

Swete, H. B., 14, 47, 126, 
266, 268, 298, 305, 321, 
351, 355, 358, 365, 367, 
371, 399, 405, 413, 418, 
429, 436, 437. 

Syriac, Sinaitic, 29, 74, 89, 91, 125, 
Fd, 1164, 217; (2215 023252535 
254, 275; 281, 317, 319, 321, 
364, 381, 389, 391, 395, 403, 
406. 


133, 


153, 
240, 


349, 


212, 
339, 
309, 


421, 


Tabernacles, Feast of, 11, 240, 286. 

Tabor, 54, 238. 

Tabula of Cebes, 115. 

Tacitus, 139, 325, 375, 389. 

Talmud, 17, 68, 83, 98, 102, 106, 
100. T1372 1163, 71977 196,* τῆορ, 
213; SIG, 321) 258] 350: 

Tamar, 2. 

Tares, 192. 

Taylor, C., 275. 

Temple, 40, 287, 289, 292, 328, 
377, 401. 

Temple-tax, 244. 

Temptations of Christ, 35, 40, 42, 
125, 233, 234, 368. 

Ten, xxiii, 59, 343. 

Tertullian, 22, 82, 95, 107, 112, 160, 
190, 266, 331, 342, 371, 424; 


434- 

Testament of Abraham, 337. 

Testaments of the X/I. Patriarchs, 
XxxiV, 13, 32, 34, 44, 47, 58, 
62, 77, 78, 80, 88, 99, 104, 105, 
106, 107, III, 128, 151, 181, 
185, 214, 253, 270, 271, 304, 
309, 325, 329, 336, 349, 351, 
352, 382, 385, 391, 392, 399, 
403, 414, 417, 430. 


448 


Thaddeus, 147. 

Third day, 183, 243, 275, 409, 419. 
Thirlwall, C., 311, 363. 

Thomas de Celano, 155. 

Thomson, W. M., 71. 

Titus, 334. 

Toledoth Jeschu, 425. 

Tombs, 319, 411. 

Moye Ὁ: ἘΠ LO ΤΥ} 2175: 
Tractatus de Rebaptismate, 31. 
Tradition, 174, 211, 319. 
Transfiguration, 238. 

Trench, IR. (G.y 70; O rs 

Tribute to Ceesar, 304. 

Triplets, xix;) xxije2, 177, 91; 90, 


105, 123, 130, 137; 141, 154, 
I7I, 193, 309, 316, 317, 318, 
319, 321. 


Tristram, H. B., 113, 165, 192, 350. 

Triumphal entry, 284. 

Twelve, the, 148. 

Twelve, tenderness of Mt. for the, 
xiv, 132, 189, 210, 222, 238, 
243, 248, 269, 275, 277, 371. 

Two classes of men in Scripture, 118, 
178, 193, 273, 343, 346. 


Uncleanness, 130. 
Unpardonable sin, 179. 


Valentinus, 67. 

Veil of the Temple, 401. 

Version, Authorized, eccentricities of, 
89, 110, 175, 200, 274, 276, 
283, 352, 372, 422. 

Revised, 159, 240, 372, 411. 

Victor of Antioch, 398. 

Virgil, 391. 

Virgin-birth, 3, 7. 

Vultures, 334. 


INDEX 


Walking on the sea, 207, 

Warfield, D. B., 252. 

Washing, 22, 212, 319, 391. 

Watchfulness, 340, 343. 

Wedding, 140, 301. 

Wedding Garment, 302. 

Weiss, B., 205, 229, 246, 254, 311, 
371, 404. 

Weiss, J., 371. 

Wellhausen, J., 105, 109, 116, 125, 
121, 168, 295, 339, 342, 420, 


430. 

Westcott, 179, 180, 195, 268, 330, 
342, 364, 371, 403, 426. 

Wetstein, 142, 290, 303. 

Weymouth, R. F., 286. 

Wicked Husbandmen, 2096. 

Williams, Isaac, 336, 383. 

Wine, 141, 364, 366, 393, 395. 

Wisdom, 163. 

Woes, 58, 68, 165, 249, 316, 321, 360. 

Women in the First Gospel, 326, 383, 
407, 412, 418. 

Wood, J. G., 334. 

Words from the Cross, 399, 401. 

Wordsworth and White, 281. 

Worshipping Jesus, 14, 122, 
210, 216, 422, 427. 

Wright, A., 9, 30, 39, 82, 122, 186, 
211, 214, 260, 286, 288, 326, 
357 390, 395; 421, 426. 


Yoke as a metaphor, 171. 


142, 


Zachariah, the blood of, 322, 323. 

Zahn, viii, 8, 9, 32, Οἵ, 125, 143, 
1602, 1045 ΤῊ5; 505: 221: 227, 
258, 291, 295, 303, 324, 339, 
389, 400, 402. 

Zealots, 147, 206, 304. 


ἀγανακτεῖν, 262, 280. 
ἀγαπητός, 297. 
ἀγγαρεύειν, 393. 
ἄγγελος Κυρίου, 417. 
ἄγειν, 372. 

ἅγιος τόπος, 332. 
ἀγρός, 385, 394. 
ἀδημονεῖν, 368. 
ἀετός, 334. 

ἄζυμα, τά, 353. 
ἀθῷος, 391. 

αἰτεῖν, 113, 277. 
αἰών, 180, 195, 436. 
αἰώνιος, 250, 263, 352. 
ἄκανθαι, 188. 
ἀκμήν, 213. 

ἀκούειν, 46, 423. 
ἀκριβοῦν, 20. 
ἁμαρτωλοί, 372. 
ἀμήν, 76, 83. 
ἀμφίβληστρον, 49. 
ἀνάγαιον, 358. 
ἀνάπαυσις, 171. 
ἀναπληροῦν, 189. 
ἀνατολή, 13. 
ἀναχωρεῖν, 47, 142. 


Il, GREEK 


INDEX II. 


ἄνθρωπος, 113, 131, 257, 298, 404. 


ἀνοίγειν, 32. 

ἀνομία, 117, 196. 
ἀντάλλαγμα, 235. 
am’ ἄρτι, 365, 379. 
ἀπέχειν, ΟἹ, 371. 
ἀπιστία, 243. 
ἁπλοῦς, 107. 

ἀπό, 163. 

ἀπὸ τότε, 48. 
ἀποδημεῖν, 296, 346. 


ἀποδιδόναι, 92, 256, 258, 305, 407. 


ἀποκρίνεσθαι, 388. 
ἀπολύειν, 260. 
ἀποστέλλειν, 151, 321. 
ἀργός, 181. 

ἄρτι, 142, 379. 


ἄρτοι τῆς προθέσεως, 173. 


ἄρχεσθαι, 28. 
ἀρχιερεύς, 14. 
ἄρχων, 263. 
ἄσβεστος, 29. 
αὐλίζεσθαι, 200. 
ἀφανίζειν, 105. 


ἀφιέναι, 43, 111, 136, 253, 340, 400. 


ἀφορίζειν, 352. 
29 


GREEK. 


βαπτίζειν, 433. 
βαστάζειν, 28, 128, 
βαττολογεῖν, 93. 
βῆμα, 389. 
βιάζεσθαι, 162. 
βλέπειν, 112. 


βρυγμὸς τῶν ὀδόντων, 200. 


γάμοι, 312. 


γέγραπται, 146, 312, 359, 367. 


yéevva, 79, 321. 
γενεά, 182. 


γένημα τῆς ἀμπέλου, 365. 
γεννήματα ἐχιδνῶν, 27, 35. 


γεννᾶν, 6 


440 


γίνεσθαι, 9, 88, 120, 151, 262, 285. 


γονυπετεῖν, 241. 
γρηγορεῖν, 341. 


δεῖ, 234, 250, 275, 330. 
δεῖνα, 358. 

δένδρον, 104. 

δεξιός, 351. 
διάβολος, 36, 37, 43. 
διακονεῖν, 43. 
διάκονος, 280. 
διάνοια, 309. 
διαφημίζειν, 439. 
διδόναι, 305, 407. 
δίδραχμα, τὰ, 244. 


δικαιοσύνη, 65, 91, 106, 109. 


διστάζειν, 427. 
δοκεῖν, 28. 
δουλεύειν, 107. 
δοῦλος, 280. 


δύναμις, 335, 379. 
δύνασθαι, 377. 


ἐγείρειν, 330. 
ἔγερσις, 403. 
ἐγκαταλείπειν, 300. 


ἐγώ, emphatic, 151, 294, 321, 436. 


ἔθνος, 406. 

εἰκῇ, 78. 

εἶμι, ἐγώ, 208, 378. 
εἰς, 22, 33, 433. 

ἐκ, 310, 363. 
ἐκβάλλειν, 124, 145. 


ἐκεῖ, 206, 290, 399, 405, 408. 


ἐκκλησία, 228, 253. 
ἐκπειράζειν, 41. 
ἐλεήμων, 66. 


450 


ἐλπίζειν, 175. 
ἐμβλέπειν, 267, 270. 
ἐν, 156, 433. 

ἔνοχος, 79. 

ἐντολή, 308. 
ἐξομολογοῦσθαι, 165. 
ἐξουσία, 119. 
ἑορτήν, κατὰ, 388, 
ἐπάνω, 286. 

ἐπί, 33, 286, 423. 
ἐπιγαμβρεύειν, 306. 
ἐπιούσιος, ΤΟΙ. 
ἔρχεσθαι, 75, 348. 
ἐρχόμενος, ὃ, 76, 159. 
ἑταῖρε, 374. 
ἑτοιμάζειν, 351. 
εὐαγγέλιον, 50. 
εὐδία, 237. 

εὐθέως, 49, 335, 346. 
εὐλογεῖν, 361. 
εὐχαριστεῖν, 361. 
ἔχειν, 250, 410. 


ζιζάνια, 192. 
ζωή, 115, 263, 352. 


ἡγεμών, 385. 
ἡλικία, τοῦ. 
ἡμέρα κρίσεως, 151. 


Θαβώριον, τὸ, 238, 241. 


θέλειν, 163, 208, 325. 
Θεοῦ υἱός, 210. 

θέρος, 337. 

θόρυβος, 353. 


ἰδού, 15. 

ἸἸεροσόλυμα, 13. 
᾿Ιερουσαλήμ, 324. 
ἱκανός, 423. 

ἱμάτιον, 286, 380. 
iva, 20, 31, 189, 322. 


καθαρός, 66, 407. 
καθηγητής, 315. 
καθίζειν, 314. 
καθώς, 284, 359. 
καὶ γάρ, 217. 

καὶ ἰδού, 15, 416. 
καιρός, 43, 221, 270. 
καλεῖν, 302. 
κάμινος, 250. 
καρδία, 309. 

κατά, 388. 
καταλύειν, 76, 377. 
κατανοεῖν, 112. 
καταπέτασμα, 401. 


INDEX 


καταφιλεῖν, 372. 
Κατεξουσιάζειν, 279. 
κατοικεῖν, 185. 
κινεῖν, 314. 
κλαυθμός, 200. 
κλέπτης, 306. 
κόλασις, 250, 352. 
κόπτεσθαι, 330. 
κουστωδία, 4το. 
κόφινος, 219. 
κράσπεδον, 141. 
κτᾶσθαι, 149. 
κυνάριον, 216. 
Κύριος, 123, 131, 422. 
κωφός, 175. 


λῃστής, 288, 396. 
λικμᾶν, 299. 
λύτρον, 280. 
λύχνος, 80. 


μαθητεύειν, 406, 430. 
μαλακία, 50, 53, 128. 
μαμωνᾶς, 107. 
μάχαιρα, 374. 
μέλλειν, 243, 275, 2776 
μέριμνα, 108, 109. 
μεριμνᾶν, 108. 
μετάνοια, 21. 
μετοικεσία, II. 

μή, III, 306. 
μνημεῖον, 411. 
μοιχαλίς, 182. 
μυστήριον, 189. 
μωρός, 79, 118. 


Ναζαρέτ, 18. 
Ναζωραῖος, 18, 306, 
ναί, 84, 

ναός, 377. 385. 
νεᾶνις, 8. 

νεανίσκος, 263. 


νέος, 365. 


οἰκοδεσπότης, 206. 
ὀλιγοπιστία, 243. 
ὅλος, 114, 375- 
ὁμοιοῦν, 192. 
ὁμολογεῖν ἐν, 156. 
ὄνομα, 325, 330, 434. 
ὄξος, 395, 411. 
ὀπίσω, 43, 233. 
ὅπως, 20, 189, 322. 
ὅραμα, 239. 

ὅρκος, 84. 

ὄρος, 54, 426. 

οὐ μή, 325, 345. 


II. GREEK 451 


οὐρονιος, 74. σάββατον, 333, 415. 

odpdvol, 24, 32, 74, 228. σαγήνη, 49. 

αὕτως, 74. . σαπρός, 181. 

ὄφις, 113. σεισμός, 131, 415. 

ὄχλοι πολλοί, 53. . σεληνιάζεσθαι, 241. 

ὀψέ, 415. σκληροκαρδία, 250. 

ὀψία, 406. ; σκύλλειν, 145. 
σπήλαιον, 288. 

παγιδεύειν, 304. σπλαγχνίζεσθαι, 123, 144, 282. 

παῖς, 201, 280. στατήρ, 248, 384. 

πάλιν, 77, 254. σταυροῦν, 395. 

παλινγενεσία, 271. σὺ εἶπας, 361, 378, 387. 

παραδιδόναι, 168, 243, 276, 353. σὺ λέγεις, 387. 

παρακούειν, 254. συμβούλιον λαμβάνειν, 175. 

παραλαμβάνειν, 253, 340. συνάγειν, 308, 351, 376, 

παραχρῆμα, 200. συναίρειν λόγον, 258. 

παρεῖναι, 373. σύνδουλος, 342. 

παρθένος, ὃ. συντέλεια, 105, 436. 

παριέναι, 373. σφόδρα, 15. 

παρουσία, 320. σφυρίς, 210. 

Πατήρ, 74, 369. σχολάζειν, 185. 

πειράζειν, 43. r 

πενθεῖν, 63. ταμεῖον, 110. 

πενθερά, 127. τάφος, 411. 

περίλυπος, 368. τέκνον, 136, 163, 204. 

πέτρα, 228. τελεῖν, 119, 153. 

Πέτρος, 228. τέλειος, 88. 

πήρα, 150. τελώνης, 80. 

πίνειν, 363. τιμὴ αἵματος, 385. 

πιπράσκειν, 107. τότε, 15, 276, 313, 343, 356. 

πλανᾶν, 307, 330. τρίτῃ ἡμέρᾳ, 183. 

πλάνη, 409. τρυβλίον, 359. 

πλάνος, 400. 

πληροῦν, 20, 76, 189, 386. ὕπαγε, 43, 134, 233. 

ποιεῖν, 181, 240. ὑπό, 37. 

ποῖος, 265, 292, 308, 340. ὑποκριτής, 342. 

πονηρός, 86, 113. ὑπομονή, 152. 

πορεύεσθαι, 15, 140. booq, 400. 

πορνεία, 81. ὑστερεῖν, 265, 266. 

mpavs, 64, 170. 

προάγειν, 295. φιμοῦν, 303. 


πρόθεσις, 173. φοβεῖσθαι ἀπό, 155. 
πρὸς ἡμᾶς, 199. φορτίζειν, 170. 
προσέρχεσθαι, 37, 141. φορτίον, 170. 
προσκυνεῖν, 13, 15, 43, 122, 142, 427. | δρόνιμος, 118, 346. 
προσλαμβάνεσθαι, 232. φωτεινός, 239. 
προσφέρειν, 79, 128, 261. 
πρόσωπον, 105. 


μὰ alpere, 422. 
πτῶμα, 334, 407. RUPE, & 


χιτών, 380. 
=, ΕἾ τα = χολή, 394, 411. 
πῦρ, 250, 352. χρηστός, 170. 


Re: AST» Wevdouaprupla, 214, 220, 


ῥηθέν, τὸ, 20. ψυχή, 156, 309, 368. 
ῥῆμα, 181. 
ῥίπτειν, 145, 385. ὠδίνων, ἀρχὴ, 330. 


Printed by Morrison & Ginp ΤΜΊΤΕΡ, Edinburgh 


; ws at via aX. 


ah 


a ΝΣ 
᾿ 
πυ 
J 
νΝ 
5 ( 
* : } 
¥ 7 
᾿ Φ 
᾿ 
aa; 
7 
- 
7 
: , ᾿ 
: ae ¥ 
εν 
gi 7 
ow 
᾽ a 
" υ 
7 _ 
7 y 
᾿ 7 
ΓΝ 
is 
rs ᾿ 
τ 
ἣν 
ἢ ᾿ 
) 
: _ ᾿ 


UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA LIBRARY 
BERKELEY 


Return to desk from which borrowed. 
This book is DUE on the last date stamped below. 


MAR 8. 1948 Ἢ ov 18 1959 
αὐ Ἢ ἐν δι | 
ῇ Ὗ L. aly! Ἢ ἀμ ἡ LD SEP 15 963 09 
FEB: 20-4958 oy 
11.00.49} | REC'D LD JANQ7 '70-1PH Ὁ 
'59GM 
Ἄλλα SOS Ὁ 30sul’59 G 
ae ocT26 1970 79 
REC'D LD REC'D EP | 
FEB 8 1958 16 1059 
7MarS8RHE mare AY 2.31973 7 { 
iu coi 1915 40 
ἐ war ΒΠΗ 


REC’D LD ‘A so 

REC'D LO ay 99 "Phat ῬΗ 98 ih = wid 
AS Cl τος | 

LD ee ee eee Sop Free 5 


τῷ 


το 


GENERAL LIBRARY - U.C. BERKELEY 


WN NN 


annoq3so4b4 


aren 
Daa ere FUPoCoaswenes 
> nee ee ᾿ Γ re 7) el i. Preew ian 
ed ah erm AT 
dane ΟἹ 


-- - 


-ο-...... 
—— 


ΝΝ δὰ δὰ ὶ 
ANY \\ 
YY WY 

A 
XK 


RY \\\ ΝΝ 


